Search

Background: Palliative care is subject to substantial variations in care, which may be shaped through adapting the organisational structures through which care is provided. Whilst the goal of these structures is to improve patient care, there is a lack of evidence regarding their effect on care processes and patient outcomes. Aims: This study aims to describe the relationship between care structures and the quantity and domains of care processes in hospice care. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Settings/Participants: Data were collected from Dutch hospice patient's clinical records and hospice surveys, detailing hospice structures, patient clinical characteristics and care processes. Results: 662 patients were included from 42 hospices, mean age 76.1 years. Hospices were categorised according to their care structures - structured clinical documentation and multidisciplinary meetings. Patients receiving care in hospices with structured multidisciplinary meetings had an increased quantity of documented care processes per patient on admission through identification (median 4 vs 3, P < .001), medication (2 vs 1, P = .004) and non-medication (1 vs 0, P < .001) interventions, monitoring (2 vs 1, P < .001) and evaluation (0 vs 0, P = .014), and prior to death. Similar increases were identified for patients who received care in hospices with structured documentation upon admission, but these changes were not consistent prior to death. Conclusions: This study details that the care structures of documentation and multidisciplinary meetings are associated with increased quantity and breadth of documentation of care processes in hospice care. Employing these existing structures may result in improvements in the documentation of patient care processes, and thus better communication around patient care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Pre-test genetic counseling of patients with breast cancer is increasingly being offered by non-genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experiences of patients with breast cancer receiving pre-test genetic counseling from a non-genetic healthcare professional (i.e., surgeon or nurse)., Methods: Patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received pre-test counseling from their surgeon or nurse (mainstream group), and patients who received pre-test counseling from a clinical geneticist (usual care group) were invited to participate in our multicenter study. Between September 2019 and December 2021, patients received a questionnaire after pre-test counseling (T0) and four weeks after receiving their test results (T1) to evaluate psychosocial outcomes, knowledge, discussed topics and satisfaction., Results: We included 191 patients in our mainstream and 183 patients in our usual care group and received, respectively 159 and 145 follow-up questionnaires. Levels of distress and decisional regret were comparable in both groups. Decisional conflict was higher in our mainstream group (p = 0.01), but only 7% had clinically relevant decisional conflict (vs 2% in usual care group). The possible implications of a genetic test on (secondary) breast or ovarian cancer risks were less frequently discussed in our mainstream group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.000, respectively). In both groups knowledge about genetics was comparable, satisfaction was high and the majority of patients in both groups preferred to give both verbal and written consent for genetic testing., Conclusion: Mainstreamed genetic care provides sufficient information for the majority of breast cancer patients to decide about genetic testing with minimal distress., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined., Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa., Design Setting and Participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method., Results and Limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/ BRCA -related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline., Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa., Patient Summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: National clinical guidelines have been developed internationally to reduce variations in clinical practices and promote the quality of palliative care. In The Netherlands, there is considerable variability in the organisation and care processes of inpatient palliative care, with three types of hospices - Volunteer-Driven Hospices (VDH), Stand-Alone Hospices (SAH), and nursing home Hospice Units (HU). Aim: This study aims to examine clinical practices in palliative care through different hospice types and identify variations in care. Methods: Retrospective cohort study utilising clinical documentation review, including patients who received inpatient palliative care at 51 different hospices and died in 2017 or 2018. Care provision for each patient for the management of pain, delirium and palliative sedation were analysed according to the Dutch national guidelines. Results: 412 patients were included: 112 patients who received treatment for pain, 53 for delirium, and 116 patients underwent palliative sedation therapy. Care was provided in accordance with guidelines for pain in 32%, 61% and 47% (P = .047), delirium in 29%, 78% and 79% (P = .0016), and palliative sedation in 35%, 63% and 42% (P = .067) of patients who received care in VDHs, SAHs and HUs respectively. When all clinical practices were considered, patient care was conducted according to the guidelines for 33% of patients in VDHs, 65% in SAHs, and 50% in HUs (P < .001). Conclusions: The data demonstrate that care practices are not standardised throughout Dutch hospices and exhibit significant variations between type of hospice.

Objectives: Hospice care in the Netherlands is provided in three different types of hospice facilities: volunteer-driven hospices (VDH), stand-alone hospices (SAHs) and hospice unit nursing homes (HU). The organisational structures range from care directed by trained volunteers in VDH to care provided by multiprofessional teams in SAH and HU units.This study aims to characterise the patient populations who access Dutch hospices and describe the patient profiles in different hospice types., Methods: A retrospective cohort study using clinical records of adult hospice inpatients in 2017-2018 from a random national sample of hospices., Results: In total 803 patients were included from 51 hospices, mean age 76.1 (SD 12.4). 78% of patients had a primary diagnosis of cancer, 3% identified as non-Dutch cultural background and 17% were disorientated on admission. At admission, all patients were perceived to have physical needs. Psychological needs were reported in 37%, 36% and 34%, social needs by 53%, 52% and 62%, and existential needs by 23%, 30% and 18% of patients in VDH, SAH, HU units, respectively. 24%, 29% and 27% of patients from VDHs, SAHs and HUs had care needs in three dimensions, and 4%, 6% and 3% in all four dimensions., Conclusions: People who access Dutch hospices predominantly have cancer, and have a range of physical, psychological, social and existential needs, without substantial differences between hospice types. Patients with non-malignant disease and non-Dutch cultural backgrounds are less likely to access hospice care, and future policy would ideally focus on facilitating their involvement., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Germline genetic testing is increasingly offered to patients with epithelial ovarian cancer by non-genetic healthcare professionals, so called mainstream genetic testing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implementing a mainstream genetic testing pathway on the percentage of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer to whom genetic testing was offered and the genetics-related healthcare costs., Methods: The possible care pathways for genetic counseling and testing and their associated costs were mapped. Patient files from all newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer before (March 2016 - September 2017) and after (April 2018 - December 2019) implementing our mainstream genetic testing pathway were analyzed. Based on this analysis, the percentage of newly diagnosed patients to whom genetic testing was offered was assessed and genetics-related healthcare costs were calculated using a healthcare payer perspective based on a Diagnosis-Related Group financing approach., Results: Within six months after diagnosis, genetic testing was offered to 56% of patients before and to 70% of patients after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (p = 0.005). Genetics-related healthcare costs decreased from €3.511,29 per patient before implementation to €2.418,41 per patient after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (31% reduction, p = 0.000)., Conclusion: This study shows that mainstream genetic testing leads to a significantly higher proportion of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer being offered germline genetic testing. In addition, it significantly reduces genetics-related healthcare costs per patient., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest AstraZeneca sponsored the training module that was developed as part of this project, and was not involved in the development of its content., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)