Search

Background In older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the choice between kidney transplantation (KT) and dialysis may be more complex than in younger patients because of a higher prevalence of comorbidities and frailty. This study aims to provide greater insight into the current decision-making process by exploring the expectations, experiences and health outcome priorities of all stakeholders. Methods We performed semi-structured interviews with patients ≥65 years with ESKD (eGFR <15 ml/min/1.73m2, KT recipient or treated with dialysis), patients' relatives and healthcare professionals (nephrologists, nurses and medical social workers). Interviews were conducted until data saturation and thematically analysed. Results We performed 36 interviews (patients n  = 18, relatives n  = 5, healthcare professionals n  = 13). Thematic analysis revealed five themes. Older patients' health outcome priorities were mostly related to quality of life (QOL). Individual older patients showed marked differences in the preferred level of engagement during the decision-making process (varying from 'wants to be in the lead' to 'follows the nephrologist') and in informational needs (varying from evidence-based to experience-based). On the contrary, healthcare professionals were quite unanimous on all aspects. They focused on determining eligibility for KT as start of the decision-making process, on clear and extensive information provision and on classical, medical outcomes. Conclusions The decision-making process could benefit from early identification of older patients' values, needs and health outcome priorities, in parallel with assessment of KT eligibility and before discussing the treatment options, and the explicit use of this information in further steps of the decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is a crucial element of palliative care. It improves the quality of end-of-life care and reduces aggressive and needless life-prolonging medical interventions. However, little is known about its application in daily practice. This study aims to examine the application of ACP for patients with cancer in general practice.Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study in 11 general practices in the Netherlands. Electronic patient records (EPRs) of deceased patients with colorectal or lung cancer were analysed. Data on ACP documentation, correspondence between medical specialist and GP, and health care use in the last year of life were extracted.Results: Records of 163 deceased patients were analysed. In 74% of the records, one or more ACP items were registered. GPs especially documented patients' preferences for euthanasia (58%), palliative sedation (46%) and preferred place of death (26%). Per patient, GPs received on average six letters from medical specialists. These letters mainly contained information regarding medical treatment and rarely ACP items. In the last year of life, patients contacted the GP over 30 times, and 51% visited the emergency department at least once, of whom 54% in the last month.Conclusions: Registration of ACP items in GPs' EPRs appeared to be limited. ACP elements were rarely subject of communication between primary and secondary care, which may impact the continuity of patient care during the last year of life. More emphasis on registration of ACP items and better exchange of information regarding patients' preferences are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As the number of patients with complex healthcare needs grows, inter-professional collaboration between primary care professionals must be constantly optimized. General practitioners (GPs) and community nurses (CNs) are key professions in primary care; however, poor GP-CN communication is common, and research into the factors influencing its quality is limited.Objective: To explore patient-related GP-CN communication and facilitating and hindering factors, and to identify strategies to enhance this communication.Method: A qualitative focus group design was used to identify the facilitating and hindering factors and strategies for improvement. In a Dutch primary care setting, 6 mono-professional focus group interviews (3 meetings of 13 GPs; 3 meetings of 18 CNs) were organized between June 2015 and April 2016, recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two independent researchers performed the coding of these interviews, identifying their categories and themes.Results: Results show that, despite the regular contact between GPs and CNs, communication was generally perceived as poor in effectiveness and efficiency by both professions. Mutual trust was considered the most important facilitating factor for effective communication. Profession-specific factors (e.g. differences in responsibility and profession-specific language) and organizational factors (e.g. lack of shared care plans, no in-person communication, lack of time) may be of influence on communication. Participants' suggestions for improvement included organizing well-structured and reimbursed team meetings and facilitating face-to-face contact.Conclusion: GP-CN patient-related communication benefits most from trusting inter-personal relationships. Inter-professional training programmes should address both professional and organizational factors and should be evaluated for their effect on quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]