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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A high percentage of people dying at home, and a low percentage of people being admitted to hospital and dying there are regarded as indicators of appropriate care at the end of life. However, performance standards for these quality indicators are often lacking, which makes it difficult to state whether an indicator score falls between the ranges of good or poor quality care. The aim of this study was to assess quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization in people with diseases relevant for palliative care, and to establish best practice performance standards based on indicator scores in 31 regions in the Netherlands. Methods: A retrospective nationwide population-based observational study was conducted, using routinely collected administrative data concerning persons who died in 2017 in the Netherlands with underlying causes relevant for palliative care (N = 109,707). Data from four registries were linked for analysis. Scores on eight quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization were calculated, and compared across 31 healthcare insurance regions to establish relative benchmarks. Results: On average, 36.4% of the study population died at home (range between regions 30.5%-42.6%) and 20.4% in hospital (range 16.6%-25.5%). Roughly half of the population who received hospital care at any time in the last year of life were found to (also) receive hospital care in the last month of life. In the last month, 32.0% of the study population were admitted to hospital (range 29.4-36.4%), 5.3% to an Intensive Care Unit (range 3.2-6.9%) and 23.9% visited an Emergency Department (range 21.0-27.4%). In the same time period, less than 1% of the study population was resuscitated in hospital or received tube or intravenous feeding in hospital. Conclusions: The variation between regions points towards opportunities for practice improvement. The best practice performance standards as set in this study serve as ambitious but attainable targets for those regions that currently do not meet the standards. Policymakers, healthcare providers and researchers can use the suggested performance standards to further analyze causes of variance between regions and develop and test interventions that can improve practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Needs assessment tools can facilitate healthcare professionals in timely recognition of palliative care needs. Despite the increased attention for implementation of such tools, most studies provide little or no attention to the context of implementation. The aim of this study was to explore factors that contribute positively and negatively to timely screening of palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure. Methods: Qualitative study using individual interviews and focus groups with healthcare professionals. The data were analysed using a deductive approach. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to conceptualise the contextual factors. Results: Twenty nine healthcare professionals with different backgrounds and working in heart failure care in the Southern and Eastern parts of the Netherlands participated. Several factors were perceived to play a role, such as perception and knowledge about palliative care, awareness of palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure, perceived difficulty when and how to start palliative care, limited acceptance to treatment boundaries in cardiology, limited communication and collaboration between healthcare professionals, and need for education and increased attention for palliative care in advanced chronic heart failure guidelines. Conclusions: This study clarified critical factors targeting patients, healthcare professionals, organisations to implement a needs assessment tool for timely recognition of palliative care needs in the context of advanced chronic heart failure. A multifaceted implementation strategy is needed which has attention for education, patient empowerment, interdisciplinary collaboration, identification of local champions, chronic heart failure specific guidelines and culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: 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: 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: Despite the urgent need for palliative care for patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), it is not yet daily practice. Important factors influencing the provision of palliative care are adequate communication skills, knowing when to start palliative care and continuity of care. In the COMPASSION study, we address these factors by implementing an integrated palliative care approach for patients with COPD and their informal caregivers. Methods: An integrated palliative care intervention was developed based on existing guidelines, a literature review, and input from patient and professional organizations. To facilitate uptake of the intervention, a multifaceted implementation strategy was developed, comprising a toolbox, (communication) training, collaboration support, action planning and monitoring. Using a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type 2 design, this study aims to simultaneously evaluate the implementation process and effects on patient, informal caregiver and professional outcomes. In a cluster randomized controlled trial, eight hospital regions will be randomized to receive the integrated palliative care approach or to provide care as usual. Eligible patients are identified during hospitalization for an exacerbation using the Propal-COPD tool. The primary outcome is quality of life (FACIT-Pal) at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures include spiritual well-being, anxiety and depression, unplanned healthcare use, informal caregiver burden and healthcare professional's self-efficacy to provide palliative care. The implementation process will be investigated by a comprehensive mixed-methods evaluation assessing the following implementation constructs: context, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, implementation level, recruitment, maintenance and acceptability. Furthermore, determinants to implementation will be investigated using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Discussion: The COMPASSION study will broaden knowledge on the effectiveness and process of palliative care integration into COPD-care. Furthermore, it will improve our understanding of which strategies may optimize the implementation of integrated palliative care. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644. Registration date: April 7, 2019. [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: 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]