Search

Background: For people with limited lifetime expectancy, the benefit of many medications may be outweighed by their potential harms. Despite the relevance of reducing unnecessary medication use, deprescribing is poorly enacted in primary care practice., Aim: This study aims to describe factors, as identified by primary care professionals and patients, that influence deprescribing in the last phase of life., Design: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed using a thematic approach., Setting/participants: This study was performed in primary care settings, including general practices, hospices and community care teams in The Netherlands. Purposefully identified primary care professionals (general practitioners, pharmacists, nurses) and patients with limited lifetime expectancy due to advanced chronic illness or cancer and their caretakers were interviewed., Results: Three themes emerged detailing factors influencing deprescribing in the last phase of life in primary care: (1) non-maleficence, the wish to avoid additional psychological or physical distress; (2) reactive care, the lack of priority and awareness of eligible patients; and (3) discontinuity of care within primary care and between primary care and specialty care., Conclusions: Deprescribing is an incremental process, complicated by the unpredictability of life expectancy and attitudes of patients and health care professionals that associate continued medication use with clinical stability. Opportunities to facilitate the deprescribing process and its acceptance include the routinely systematic identification of patients with limited life expectancy and potentially inappropriate medications, and normalisation of deprescribing as component of regular primary care, occurring for all patients and continuing into end-of-life 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: 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.