Search

Background: Palliative patients have to cope with their disease and impending death. Knowing what this means for a patient is crucial for person-centred care. Although guidelines state it is a GP core task to explore existential issues of palliative patients, this is not standard practice. Aim: Exploring Dutch GPs' perceived role regarding addressing the existential dimension of palliative patients, and which vocabulary GPs use when doing this. Design and setting: Qualitative study amongst Dutch GPs. Participants were recruited by purposive sampling and snowballing, considering gender, working experience and ideological personal beliefs. Method: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were performed, transcribed and analysed using content analysis. Results: Seventeen GPs participated. Three themes were identified: Language, Perceived role and Practice. Interviewees generally saw it as their role to pay attention to the existential dimension of palliative patients. However, not all knew how to define this role, or how to refer patients with existential struggles to a spiritual counsellor. The multidisciplinary Dutch guideline 'Existential and Spiritual Aspects of Palliative Care' seemed largely unknown. Interviewees mostly fulfilled their role in an intuitive, pragmatic way. Questions such as "What does it mean for you to be seriously ill?" or "Do you have support from someone or something?" fitted daily practice. Conclusion: This study emphasizes the importance of basic GP education in exploring existential issues. The coexistence of a professionally obliged attention and an intuitive approach seems to be in conflict. We recommend appropriate training for GPs, research on the potential enhancement of collaboration between GPs and spiritual counsellors and implementation of the relevant guideline on well-known platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the Netherlands, euthanasia has been regulated by law since 2002. In the past decade, a growing number of persons with dementia requested for euthanasia, and more requests were granted. A euthanasia request from a patient with advanced dementia (PWAD) can have a major impact on a general practitioner (GP). We aimed to get insights in the views of Dutch GPs on euthanasia concerning this patient group. Methods: A postal survey was sent to 894 Dutch GPs. Questions were asked about a case vignette about a PWAD who was not able to confirm previous wishes anymore. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 894 GPs approached, 422 (47.3%) completed the survey. One hundred seventy-eight GPs (42.2%) did not agree with the statement that an Advance Euthanasia Directive (AED) can replace an oral request if communication with the patient concerned has become impossible. About half of the respondents (209; 49.5%) did not agree that the family can initiate a euthanasia trajectory, 95 GPs (22.5%) would accept such a family initiative and 110 GPs (26.1%) would under certain conditions. Discussion: In case of a PWAD, when confirming previous wishes is not possible anymore, about half of the Dutch GPs would not accept an AED to replace verbal or non-verbal conformation nor consider performing euthanasia; a minority would. Our study shows that, probably due to the public debate and changed professional guidelines, conflicting views have arisen among Dutch GPs about interpretation of moral, ethical values considering AED and PWADs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Due to the disease’s progressive nature, advance care planning (ACP) is recommended for people with early stage dementia. General practitioners (GPs) should initiate ACP because of their longstanding relationships with their patients and their early involvement with the disease, however ACP is seldom applied. Aim: To determine the barriers and facilitators faced by GPs related to ACP with people with dementia. Data sources: We systematically searched the relevant databases for papers published between January 1995 and December 2016, using the terms: primary healthcare, GP, dementia, and ACP. We conducted a systematic integrative review following Whittemore and Knafl’s method. Papers containing empirical data about GP barriers and/or facilitators regarding ACP for people with dementia were included. We evaluated quality using the Mixed-Method-Appraisal-Tool and analyzed data using qualitative content analysis. Results: Ten qualitative, five quantitative, and one mixed-method paper revealed four themes: timely initiation of ACP, stakeholder engagement, important aspects of ACP the conversation, and prerequisites for ACP. Important barriers were: uncertainty about the timing of ACP, how to plan for an uncertain future, lack of knowledge about dementia, difficulties assessing people with dementia’s decisional capacities, and changing preferences. Facilitators for ACP were: an early start when cognitive decline is still mild, inclusion of all stakeholders, and discussing social and medical issues aimed at maintaining normal life. Conclusion: Discussing future care is difficult due to uncertainties about the future and the decisional capacities of people with dementia. Based on the facilitators, we recommend that GPs use a timely and goal-oriented approach and involve all stakeholders. ACP discussions should focus on the ability of people with dementia to maintain normal daily function as well as on their quality of life, instead of end-of-life-discussions only. GPs need training to acquire knowledge and skills to timely initiate collaborative ACP discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question (SQ) "would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months?" has been suggested to help clinicians, and especially General Practitioners (GPs), identify people who might benefit from palliative care. The prognostic accuracy of this approach is unclear and little is known about how GPs use this tool in practice. Are GPs consistent, individually and as a group? Are there international differences in the use of the tool? Does including the alternative Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if the patient were still alive after 12 months?") alter the response? What is the impact on the treatment plan in response to the SQ? This study aims to address these questions. Methods: An online study will be completed by 600 (100 per country) registered GPs. They will be asked to review 20 hypothetical patient vignettes. For each vignette they will be asked to provide a response to the following four questions: (1) the SQ [Yes/No]; (2) the alternative SQ [Yes/No]; (3) the percentage probability of dying [0% no chance – 100% certain death]; and (4) the proposed treatment plan [multiple choice]. A "surprise threshold" for each participant will be calculated by comparing the responses to the SQ with the probability estimates of death. We will use linear regression to explore any differences in thresholds between countries and other clinician-related factors, such as years of experience. We will describe the actions taken by the clinicians and explore the differences between groups. We will also investigate the relationship between the alternative SQ and the other responses. Participants will receive a certificate of completion and the option to receive feedback on their performance. Discussion: This study explores the extent to which the SQ is consistently used at an individual, group, and national level. The findings of this study will help to understand the clinical value of using the SQ in routine practice. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03697213 (05/10/2018). Prospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although it is often recommended that general practitioners (GPs) initiate advance care planning (ACP), little is known about their experiences with ACP. This study aimed to identify GP experiences when conducting ACP conversations with palliative patients, and what factors influence these experiences. Methods: Dutch GPs (N = 17) who had participated in a training on timely ACP were interviewed. Data from these interviews were analysed using direct content analysis. Results: Four themes were identified: ACP and society, the GP's perceived role in ACP, initiating ACP and tailor-made ACP. ACP was regarded as a 'hot topic'. At the same time, a tendency towards a society in which death is not a natural part of life was recognized, making it difficult to start ACP discussions. Interviewees perceived having ACP discussions as a typical GP task. They found initiating and timing ACP easier with proactive patients, e.g. who are anxious of losing capacity, and much more challenging when it concerned patients with COPD or heart failure. Patients still being treated in hospital posed another difficulty, because they often times are not open to discussion. Furthermore, interviewees emphasized that taking into account changing wishes and the fact that not everything can be anticipated, is of the utmost importance. Moreover, when patients are not open to ACP, at a certain point it should be granted that choosing not to know, for example about where things are going or what possible ways of care planning might be, is also a form of autonomy. Conclusions: ACP currently is a hot topic, which has favourable as well as unfavourable effects. As GPs experience difficulties in initiating ACP if patients are being treated in the hospital, future research could focus on a multidisciplinary ACP approach and the role of medical specialists in ACP. Furthermore, when starting ACP with palliative patients, we recommend starting with current issues. In doing so, a start can be made with future issues kept in view. Although the tension between ACP's focus on the patient's direction and the right not to know can be difficult, ACP has to be tailored to each individual patient. [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]