Search

Objective Our aim was to synthesise the available evidence surrounding the structure, processes and outcomes of family meetings in the paediatric palliative care literature. Methods We undertook an integrative literature review informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019138938). Electronic databases were systematically search using keywords and hand searching of reference articles and grey literature was also completed. results Ten empirical studies and five theoretical articles were included in the synthesis. Empirical studies provided more information about meeting structure, whereas theoretical articles more frequently described a desired process for planning and undertaking meetings. No articles identified how the success of a meeting was defined or made recommendations for doing so. Despite reports that family meetings are commonly occurring, few articles described outcomes from either the family or clinician perspectives. conclusions Family meetings are essential communication strategies commonly used in paediatric palliative care, yet there is little guidance about how meetings should be organised and conducted, who should participate and when they should occur. The limited data available on the outcomes of family meetings suggest improvements are required to meet the needs of families. We present a framework that synthesises the available evidence. The framework offers an overview of the elements to consider when planning for and undertaking family meetings in paediatric palliative care and may be useful for both clinicians and researchers.

Background: General practitioners (GPS) and general practice nurses (GPNs) face increasing demands to provide palliative care (PC) or end-of-life care (EoLC) as the population ages. To enhance primary EoLC, the facilitators and barriers to their provision need to be understood. Objective: To provide a comprehensive description of the facilitators and barriers to GP and GPN provision of PC or EoLC. Method: Systematic literature review. Data included papers (2000 to 2017) sought from Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases. Results: From 6209 journal articles, 62 reviewed papers reported the GP's and GPN's role in EoLC or PC practice. Six themes emerged: Patient factors; personal GP factors; general practice factors; relational factors; co-ordination of care; availability of services. Four specific settings were identified: Aged care facilities, out-of-hours care and resource-constrained settings (rural, and low-income and middle-income countries). Most GPS provide EoLC to some extent, with greater professional experience leading to increased comfort in performing this form of care. The organisation of primary care at practice, local and national level impose numerous structural barriers that impede more significant involvement. There are potential gaps in service provision where GPNs may provide significant input, but there is a paucity of studies describing GPN routine involvement in EoLC. Conclusions: While primary care practitioners have a natural role to play in EoLC, significant barriers exist to improved GP and GPN involvement in PC. More work is required on the role of GPNs.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) face increasing demands to provide palliative care (PC) or end-of-life care (EoLC) as the population ages. In order to maximise the impact of GPs and GPNs, the impact of different models of care that have been developed to support their practice of EoLC needs to be understood.OBJECTIVE: To examine published models of EoLC that incorporate or support GP and GPN practice, and their impact on patients, families and the health system.METHOD: Systematic literature review. Data included papers (2000 to 2017) sought from Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases.RESULTS: From 6209 journal articles, 13 papers reported models of care supporting the GP and GPN's role in EoLC or PC practice. Services and guidelines for clinical issues have mixed impact on improving symptoms, but improved adherence to clinical guidelines. National Frameworks facilitated patients being able to die in their preferred place. A single specialist PC-GP case conference reduced hospitalisations, better maintained functional capacity and improved quality of life parameters in both patients with cancer and without cancer. No studies examined models of care aimed at supporting GPNs.CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practitioners have a natural role to play in EoLC, and most patient and health system outcomes are substantially improved with their involvement. Successful integrative models need to be tested, particularly in non-malignant diseases. Such models need to be explored further. More work is required on the role of GPNs and how to support them in this role.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) face increasing demands to provide end-of-life care (EoLC) as the population ages. To enhance primary palliative care (PC), the care they provide needs to be understood to inform best practice models of care.OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive description of the self-reported role and performance of GPs and GPNs in (1) specific medical/nursing roles, (2) communication, (3) care co-ordination, (4) access and out-of-hours care, and (5) multidisciplinary care.METHOD: Systematic literature review. Data included papers (2000 to 2017) sought from Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases.RESULTS: From 6209 journal articles, 29 reviewed papers reported the GPs' and GPNs' role in EoLC or PC practice. GPs report a central role in symptom management, treatment withdrawal, non-malignant disease management and terminal sedation. Information provision included breaking bad news, prognosis and place of death. Psychosocial concerns were often addressed. Quality of communication depended on GP-patient relationships and GP skills. Challenges were unrealistic patient and family expectations, family conflict and lack of advance care planning. GPs often delayed end-of-life discussions until 3 months before death. Home visits were common, but less so for urban, female and part-time GPs. GPs co-ordinated care with secondary care, but in some cases parallel care occurred. Trust in, and availability of, the GP was critical for shared care. There was minimal reference to GPNs' roles.CONCLUSIONS: GPs play a critical role in palliative care. More work is required on the role of GPNs, case finding and models to promote shared care, home visits and out-of-hours services.

Background: Early identification of approaching end-of-life and care planning improve outcomes at the end of life. Nevertheless, the majority of people who die are not identified in time to enable appropriate care planning. We aimed to describe the challenges general practitioners (GPs) found in providing end-of-life care; what prompted GPs to identify and discuss approaching end of life with their patient and how their practice changed. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of 15 Australian GPs using semi-structured interviews, examining end-of-life care of one of their randomly selected, deceased patients. Interviews were analysed using a general inductive approach. Results: When a life-limiting prognosis was articulated, GPs integrated end-of-life care into their clinical care directly. Care often included a care plan developed in consultation with the patient. Even when death was not articulated, GPs were aware of approaching end of life and changed their focus to comfort of the patient. GPs generally had an informal care plan in mind, but this developed gradually and without discussing these plans with the patient. How GPs provided end-of-life care depended primarily on patient traits (eg, willingness to discuss physical decline) and the GP's characteristics (eg, experience, training and consulting style). Conclusions: GPs were aware of their patients' approaching end of life and care was adjusted accordingly. However, under certain circumstances this was not explicitly articulated and discussed. It is not clear if implicit but unarticulated end-of-life care is sufficient to meet patients' needs. Future studies should investigate this.

Objectives Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy. Design Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol. Setting 11 palliative care sites in Australia. Participants Participants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours. Interventions Based on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours. Main outcome measures A ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change. Results Response to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In the per protocol analysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Complete per protocol response rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm. Conclusion This study did not demonstrate any difference

Background With an increasing ageing population in most countries, the role of general practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) in providing optimal end of life (EoL) care is increasingly important. Objective To explore: (1) patient and carer expectations of the role of GPs and GPNs at EoL; (2) GPs’ and GPNs’ contribution to advance care planning (ACP) and (3) if primary care involvement allows people to die in the place of preference. Method Systematic literature review. Data sources: Papers from 2000 to 2017 were sought from Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases. Results From 6209 journal articles, 51 papers were relevant. Patients and carers expect their GPs to be competent in all aspects of palliative care. They valued easy access to their GP, a multidisciplinary approach to care and well-coordinated and informed care. They also wanted their care team to communicate openly, honestly and empathically, particularly as the patient deteriorated. ACP and the involvement of GPs were important factors which contributed to patients being cared for and dying in their preferred place. There was no reference to GPNs in any paper identified. Conclusions Patients and carers prefer a holistic approach to care. This review shows that GPs have an important role in ACP and that their involvement facilitates dying in the place of preference. Proactive identification of people approaching EoL is likely to improve all aspects of care, including planning and communicating about EoL. More work outlining the role of GPNs in end of life care is required.

Background End of life care (EoLC) is a fundamental role of general practice, which will become more important as the population ages. It is essential that general practice’s role and performance of at the end of life is understood in order to maximise the skills of the entire workforce. Objective To provide a comprehensive description of the role and performance of general practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) in EoLC symptom control. Method Systematic literature review of papers from 2000 to 2017 were sought from Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases. Results From 6209 journal articles, 46 papers reported GP performance in symptom management. There was no reference to the performance of GPNs in any paper identified. Most GPs expressed confidence in identifying EoLC symptoms. However, they reported lack of confidence in providing EoLC at the beginning of their careers, and improvements with time in practice. They perceived emotional support as being the most important aspect of EoLC that they provide, but there were barriers to its provision. GPs felt most comfortable treating pain, and least confident with dyspnoea and depression. Observed pain management was sometimes not optimal. More formal training, particularly in the use of opioids was considered important to improve management of both pain and dyspnoea. Conclusions It is essential that GPs receive regular education and training, and exposure to EoLC from an early stage in their careers to ensure skill and confidence. Research into the role of GPNs in symptom control needs to occur.

Introduction Patients post sepsis syndromes have a poor quality of life and a high rate of recurring illness or mortality. Follow-up clinics have been instituted for patients postgeneral intensive care but evidence is sparse, and there has been no clinic specifically for survivors of sepsis. The aim of this trial is to investigate if targeted screening and appropriate intervention to these patients can result in an improved quality of life (Short Form 36 health survey (SF36V.2)), decreased mortality in the first 12 months, decreased readmission to hospital and/or decreased use of health resources. Methods and analysis 204 patients postsepsis syndromes will be randomised to one of the two groups. The intervention group will attend an outpatient clinic two monthly for 6 months and receive screening and targeted intervention. The usual care group will remain under the care of their physician. To analyse the results, a baseline comparison will be carried out between each group. Generalised estimating equations will compare the SF36 domain scores between groups and across time points. Mortality will be compared between groups using a Cox proportional hazards (time until death) analysis. Time to first readmission will be compared between groups by a survival analysis. Healthcare costs will be compared between groups using a generalised linear model. Economic (health resource) evaluation will be a within-trial incremental cost utility analysis with a societal perspective. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC; HREC/13/QRBW/17), The University of Queensland HREC (2013000543), Griffith University (RHS/08/14/HREC) and the Australian Government Department of Health (26/2013). The results of this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed intensive care journals and presented at national and international intensive care and/or rehabilitation conferences.

Johnson, C. E., McVey, P., Rhee, J. J. O., Senior, H., Monterosso, L., Williams, B., . . . Mitchell, G. (2018). General practice palliative care: Patient and carer expectations, advance care plans and place of death—a systematic review. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001549

Rhee, J. J., Grant, M., Senior, H., Monterosso, L., McVey, P., Johnson, C., ... Mitchell, G. (2020). Facilitators and barriers to general practitioner and general practice nurse participation in end-of-life care: Systematic review. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002109