Search

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Palliative care is mainly restricted to terminal care. General practitioners (GPs) are not trained to early identify palliative patients with cancer, COPD or heart failure. With the help of the RADboud indicators for PAlliative Care needs (RADPAC), we trained GPs to identify patients' needs and to make a proactive care plan. They were also able to join two role-plays where they discussed the patient's future, and consulted a palliative care consultant to fine-tune the care plan. We evaluated the programme with the GPs and consultants and noted its impact on their daily practice., Methods: Two years after they had participated in the programme, we held semi-structured interviews with the GPs and a focus group interview with the consultants and performed a thematic content analysis., Results: Six consultants and nine GPs participated in the programme. Most GPs and consultants mentioned positive changes in the thinking or acting of GPs regarding early palliative care. A number continued to use the tool to identify patients; most of the others noted they had internalised the indicators. Although half of them still considered discussing end-of-life aspects difficult, particularly in patients with organ failure, the others were more easily able to discuss the future with their palliative patients., Conclusion: Although most GPs and consultants were positive about the training programme and applying it in daily practice, we conclude that in future programmes, more attention needs to paid to timely identification of palliative patients with COPD or CHF and how to discuss the future with them.

Background: Interventions to improve palliative care encounter challenges beyond the usual implementation problems because of palliative care's complex and changing character. In this study, we explored barriers and facilitators faced by health-care professionals in five European countries (England, Germany, Italy, Norway and the Netherlands) with regard to improving the organization of their palliative care service., Methods: Semi-structured individual and focus group interviews were conducted with purposefully selected health-care professionals. The constant comparative method was used to analyse the data., Results: Professionals working in hospitals, hospices, nursing homes and primary care facilities who provide palliative care to adult patients were interviewed (n =40) or participated in ten focus group interviews (n =59). Barriers and facilitators were inductively grouped into 16 categories and arranged into five themes: innovation, individual professional level, group dynamics, organizational context and local political-economic context. Although the barriers and facilitators identified differed in scope, context, strength and provenance, they were shared by professionals from different European countries., Conclusion: This study identified barriers and facilitators to organizational change in palliative care. Some of these barriers and facilitators were experienced by professionals in almost all countries and are therefore prerequisites to change. Understanding the barriers to and facilitators of change will help tailor organizational improvements to the needs of individuals and organizations.

Background: Little is known about how GPs determine whether and when patients need palliative care. Little research has been done regarding the assumption underpinning Lynn and Adamson's model that palliative care may start early in the course of the disease. This study was conducted to explore how GPs identify a need for palliative care in patients., Methods: A qualitative interview study was performed among 20 GPs in the Netherlands., Results: GPs reported that a combination of several signals, often subtle and not explicit, made them identify a need for palliative care: signals from patients (increasing care dependency and not recuperating after intercurrent diseases) and signals from relatives or reports from medical specialists. GPs reported differences in how they identified a need for palliative care in cancer patients versus those with other diseases. In cancer patients, the need for palliative care was often relatively clear because of a relatively strict demarcation between the curative and palliative phase. However, in patients with e.g. COPD or in the very old, GPs' awareness of palliative care needs often arises gradually, relatively late in the disease trajectory.GPs consider the diagnosis of a life-threatening illness as a key point in the disease trajectory. However, this does not automatically mean that a patient needs palliative care at that point., Conclusions: GPs recognize a need for palliative care on the basis of various signals. They do not support the idea underlying Lynn and Adamson's model that palliative care always starts early in the course of the disease.

Background: According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, palliative care should be initiated in an early phase and not be restricted to terminal care. In the literature, no validated tools predicting the optimal timing for initiating palliative care have been determined., Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically develop a tool for GPs with which they can identify patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cancer respectively, who could benefit from proactive palliative care., Design: A three-step procedure, including a literature review, focus group interviews with input from the multidisciplinary field of palliative healthcare professionals, and a modified Rand Delphi process with GPs., Method: The three-step procedure was used to develop sets of indicators for the early identification of CHF, COPD, and cancer patients who could benefit from palliative care., Results: Three comprehensive sets of indicators were developed to support GPs in identifying patients with CHF, COPD, and cancer in need of palliative care. For CHF, seven indicators were found: for example, frequent hospital admissions. For COPD, six indicators were found: such as, Karnofsky score ≤50%. For cancer, eight indicators were found: for example, worse prognosis of the primary tumour., Conclusion: The RADboud indicators for PAlliative Care Needs (RADPAC) is the first tool developed from a combination of scientific evidence and practice experience that can help GPs in the identification of patients with CHF, COPD, or cancer, in need of palliative care. Applying the RADPAC facilitates the start of proactive palliative care and aims to improve the quality of palliative care in general practice.

Background: According to the Word Health Organization, patients who can benefit from palliative care should be identified earlier to enable proactive palliative care. Up to now, this is not common practice and has hardly been addressed in scientific literature. Still, palliative care is limited to the terminal phase and restricted to patients with cancer. Therefore, we trained general practitioners (GPs) in identifying palliative patients in an earlier phase of their disease trajectory and in delivering structured proactive palliative care. The aim of our study is to determine if this training, in combination with consulting an expert in palliative care regarding each palliative patient's tailored care plan, can improve different aspects of the quality of the remaining life of patients with severe chronic diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure and cancer., Methods/design: A two-armed randomized controlled trial was performed. As outcome variables we studied: place of death, number of hospital admissions and number of GP out of hours contacts., Discussion: We expect that this study will increase the number of identified palliative care patients and improve different aspects of quality of palliative care. This is of importance to improve palliative care for patients with COPD, CHF and cancer and their informal caregivers, and to empower the GP. The study protocol is described and possible strengths and weaknesses and possible consequences have been outlined., Trial Registration: The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR2815.

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]

Background: The aim of this study was to gain insight into the experience of time of terminal patients with cancer. Experience of time is relevant in palliative care in both policy and practice. On a policy level, the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY), the most used outcome measure for cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare, assumes time to be a linear and additive variable, which is one of the reasons that its applicability in palliative care is questioned. On a practice level, a better understanding of the experience of time of patients with limited time left, could help to recognize if and how these patients can have a more meaningful use of time. The main focus of this study was to discover whether time perception of these patients in their last months of life had changed as compared to earlier periods of time in their lives in good physical health. The pace of time and time dominance (comparison of past, present and future) were investigated. Methods: In several hospices and palliative care units in the Netherlands, twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with terminal patients with cancer. Results: Time perception at the end of life had changed for most participants. They all lived on a day-to-day basis in the terminal phase, independent of their way of life in the healthy phase. Furthermore, the experienced duration of a day turned out to be very different between patients, but also between days, depending on daily activities. Besides, for most patients for whom the future was the dominant period of time in the healthy phase, the dominant period of time in the terminal phase had become the past. Conclusions: Time perception of terminal patients with cancer differed from the time perception in their relatively healthy phase of life. This suggests that the LY part of the QALY is not comparable for all phases of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several studies have highlighted the need for improvement in palliative care delivered to older people long-term care facilities. However, the available evidence on how to improve palliative care in these settings is weak, especially in Europe. We describe the protocol of the PACE trial aimed to 1) evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ‘PACE Steps to Success’ palliative care intervention for older people in long-term care facilities, and 2) assess the implementation process and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation in different countries. Methods: We will conduct a multi-facility cluster randomised controlled trial in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and England. In total, 72 facilities will be randomized to receive the ‘Pace Steps to Success intervention’ or to ‘care as usual’. Primary outcome at resident level: quality of dying (CAD-EOLD); and at staff level: staff knowledge of palliative care (Palliative Care Survey). Secondary outcomes: resident’s quality of end-of-life care, staff self-efficacy, self-perceived educational needs, and opinions on palliative care. Economic outcomes: direct costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Measurements are performed at baseline and after the intervention. For the resident-level outcomes, facilities report all deaths of residents in and outside the facilities over a previous four-month period and structured questionnaires are sent to (1) the administrator, (2) staff member most involved in care (3) treating general practitioner, and (4) a relative. For the staff-level outcomes, all staff who are working in the facilities are asked to complete a structured questionnaire. A process evaluation will run alongside the effectiveness evaluation in the intervention group using the RE-AIM framework. Discussion: The lack of high quality trials in palliative care has been recognized throughout the field of palliative care research. This cross-national cluster RCT designed to evaluate the impact of the palliative care intervention for long-term care facilities ‘PACE Steps to Success’ in seven countries, will provide important evidence concerning the effectiveness as well as the preconditions for optimal implementation of palliative care in nursing homes, and this within different health care systems. Trial registration: The study is registered at www.isrctn.com – ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) Registration date: July 30, 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]