Search

Background: COPD causes high morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for palliative care. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of palliative care in patients with COPD. Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial (COMPASSION study; Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644, 07-04-2019). Healthcare providers within the intervention group were trained to implement palliative care components into routine COPD care. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, after 3 and 6 months; medical records were assessed after 12 months. The primary outcome was quality of life (FACIT-Pal). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, spiritual well-being, satisfaction with care, acute healthcare use, documentation of life-sustaining treatment preferences and place of death. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used for analyses. Setting: Eight hospital regions in the Netherlands. Participants: Patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD and positive ProPal-COPD score. Results: Of 222 patients included, 106 responded to the questionnaire at 6 months. Thirty-six of 98 intervention patients (36.7%) received the intervention. Intention-to-treat-analysis showed no effect on the primary outcome (adjusted difference: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: −5.44 to 7.60). In the intervention group, fewer intensive care admissions for COPD took place (adjusted odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.81) and strong indications were found for fewer hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.46–1.03). Conclusions: We found no evidence that palliative care improves quality of life in patients with COPD. However, it can potentially reduce acute healthcare use. The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic led to suboptimal implementation and insufficient power, and may have affected some of our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Little direction exists on how to effectively implement palliative care for patients with COPD. In the COMPASSION study, we developed, executed, and evaluated a multifaceted implementation strategy to improve the uptake of region-tailored palliative care intervention components into routine COPD care. We evaluated the implementation strategy and assessed the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators. Methods: A mixed methods process evaluation was performed. Primary and secondary healthcare providers in four hospital regions in the Netherlands were trained. Patients identified during hospitalisation for an acute exacerbation received palliative care and were followed for a year. Various sources were used: process data, questionnaires including the End-of-life Professional Caregiver Survey (EPCS), medical records, monitoring meetings, and interviews. The Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to categorize implementation determinants. Results: The training sessions with roleplay were positively evaluated and increased professionals' self-efficacy in providing palliative care statistically significantly. Of 98 patients identified, 44 (44.9%) received one or more palliative care conversations at the outpatient clinic. Having those conversations was highly valued by healthcare providers because it led to clarity and peace of mind for the patient and higher job satisfaction. Coordination and continuity remained suboptimal. Most important barriers to implementation were time constraints, the COVID-19 pandemic, and barriers related to transmural and interdisciplinary collaboration. Facilitators were the systematic screening of patients for palliative care needs, adapting to the patient's readiness, conducting palliative care conversations with a pulmonologist and a COPD nurse together, and meeting regularly with a small team led by a dedicated implementation leader. Conclusions: Providing integrated palliative care for patients with COPD is highly valued by healthcare providers but remains challenging. Our findings will guide future implementation efforts. Future research should focus on how to optimize transmural and interdisciplinary collaboration. Trial registration The COMPASSION study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644. Registration date: 07/04/2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A high percentage of people dying at home, and a low percentage of people being admitted to hospital and dying there are regarded as indicators of appropriate care at the end of life. However, performance standards for these quality indicators are often lacking, which makes it difficult to state whether an indicator score falls between the ranges of good or poor quality care. The aim of this study was to assess quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization in people with diseases relevant for palliative care, and to establish best practice performance standards based on indicator scores in 31 regions in the Netherlands. Methods: A retrospective nationwide population-based observational study was conducted, using routinely collected administrative data concerning persons who died in 2017 in the Netherlands with underlying causes relevant for palliative care (N = 109,707). Data from four registries were linked for analysis. Scores on eight quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization were calculated, and compared across 31 healthcare insurance regions to establish relative benchmarks. Results: On average, 36.4% of the study population died at home (range between regions 30.5%-42.6%) and 20.4% in hospital (range 16.6%-25.5%). Roughly half of the population who received hospital care at any time in the last year of life were found to (also) receive hospital care in the last month of life. In the last month, 32.0% of the study population were admitted to hospital (range 29.4-36.4%), 5.3% to an Intensive Care Unit (range 3.2-6.9%) and 23.9% visited an Emergency Department (range 21.0-27.4%). In the same time period, less than 1% of the study population was resuscitated in hospital or received tube or intravenous feeding in hospital. Conclusions: The variation between regions points towards opportunities for practice improvement. The best practice performance standards as set in this study serve as ambitious but attainable targets for those regions that currently do not meet the standards. Policymakers, healthcare providers and researchers can use the suggested performance standards to further analyze causes of variance between regions and develop and test interventions that can improve practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Needs assessment tools can facilitate healthcare professionals in timely recognition of palliative care needs. Despite the increased attention for implementation of such tools, most studies provide little or no attention to the context of implementation. The aim of this study was to explore factors that contribute positively and negatively to timely screening of palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure. Methods: Qualitative study using individual interviews and focus groups with healthcare professionals. The data were analysed using a deductive approach. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to conceptualise the contextual factors. Results: Twenty nine healthcare professionals with different backgrounds and working in heart failure care in the Southern and Eastern parts of the Netherlands participated. Several factors were perceived to play a role, such as perception and knowledge about palliative care, awareness of palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure, perceived difficulty when and how to start palliative care, limited acceptance to treatment boundaries in cardiology, limited communication and collaboration between healthcare professionals, and need for education and increased attention for palliative care in advanced chronic heart failure guidelines. Conclusions: This study clarified critical factors targeting patients, healthcare professionals, organisations to implement a needs assessment tool for timely recognition of palliative care needs in the context of advanced chronic heart failure. A multifaceted implementation strategy is needed which has attention for education, patient empowerment, interdisciplinary collaboration, identification of local champions, chronic heart failure specific guidelines and culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background: General practitioners often act as gatekeeper, authorizing patients' access to hospital care. This gatekeeping role became even more important during the current COVID-19 crisis as uncertainties regarding COVID-19 made estimating the desirability of hospital referrals (for outpatient or inpatient hospitalization) complex, both for COVID and non-COVID suspected patients. This study explored Dutch general practitioners' experiences and ethical dilemmas faced in decision making about hospital referrals in times of the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: Semi-structured interviews with Dutch general practitioners working in the Netherlands were conducted. Participants were recruited via purposive sampling. Thematic analysis was conducted using content coding.Results: Fifteen interviews were conducted, identifying four themes: one overarching regarding (1) COVID-19 uncertainties, and three themes about experienced ethical dilemmas: (2) the patients' self-determination vs. the general practitioners' paternalism, (3) the general practitioners' duty of care vs. the general practitioners' autonomy rights, (4) the general practitioners' duty of care vs. adequate care provision.Conclusions: Lack of knowledge about COVID-19, risks to infect loved ones, scarcity of hospital beds and loneliness of patients during hospital admission were central in dilemmas experienced. When developing guidelines for future crises, this should be taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with incurable cancer face complex medical decisions. Their family caregivers play a prominent role in shared decision making processes, but we lack insights into their experiences. In this study, we explored how bereaved family caregivers experienced the shared decision making process. Methods: We performed a qualitative interview study with in-depth interviews analysed with inductive content analysis. We used a purposive sample of bereaved family caregivers (n = 16) of patients with cancer treated in a tertiary university hospital in the Netherlands. Results: Four themes were identified: 1. scenarios of decision making, 2. future death of the patient 3. factors influencing choices when making a treatment decision, and 4. preconditions for the decision making process. Most family caregivers deferred decisions to the patient or physician. Talking about the patient's future death was not preferred by all family caregivers. All family caregivers reported life prolongation as a significant motivator for treatment, while the quality of life was rarely mentioned. A respectful relationship, close involvement, and open communication with healthcare professionals in the palliative setting were valued by many interviewees. Family caregivers' experiences and needs seemed to be overlooked during medical encounters. Conclusions: Family caregivers of deceased patients with cancer mentioned life prolongation, and not quality of life, as the most important treatment aim. They highly valued interactions with the medical oncologist and being involved in the conversations. We advise medical oncologists to take more effort to involve the family caregiver, and more explicitly address quality of life in the consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Dutch health care system fosters a strong public health sector offering accessible generalist care including generalist palliative care. General practitioners are well positioned to conduct ACP, for example, to continue or initiate conversations after hospitalization. However, research shows that ACP conversations are often ad hoc and in frail patients, ACP is often only initiated when admitted to a nursing home by elderly care physicians who are on the staff. Tools that raise awareness of triggers to initiate ACP, screening tools, information brochures, checklists and training have been developed and implemented with funding by national programs which currently focus on implementation projects rather than or in addition to, research. The programs commonly require educational deliverables, patient and public involvement and addressing diversity in patient groups. A major challenge is how to implement ACP systematically and continuously across sectors and disciplines in a way that supports a proactive yet person-centered approach rather than an approach with an exclusive focus on medical procedures. Digital solutions can support continuity of care and communication about care plans. Solutions should fit a culture that prefers trust-based, informal deliberative approaches. This may be supported by involving disciplines other than medicine, such as nursing and spiritual caregiving, and public health approaches., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)