Search

ABSTRACTBackground:Decision making is an important part of managing one's life with dementia. Shared decision making is the preferred way of involving people in decisions. Our study aimed to describe the challenges of shared decision making in dementia care networks., Methods: A multi-perspective qualitative study using face-to-face interviews with 113 respondents in 23 care networks in the Netherlands consisting of 23 people with dementia, 44 of their informal caregivers, and 46 of their professional caregivers. The interview guide addressed the decision topics, who were involved in the decision making and their contributions to the decision making. We used content analysis to delineate categories and themes., Results: The themes and categories that emerged are: (1) adapting to a situation of diminishing independence, which includes the continuous changes in the care network, resulting in shifting decision-making roles and the need for anticipating future decisions; and (2) tensions in network interactions which result from different perspectives and interests and which require reaching agreement about what constitutes a problem by exchanging information in the care network., Conclusion: The challenges in dementia care networks relate to all dimensions of social health. They have implications for a model of shared decision making in dementia care networks. Such a model requires flexibility regarding changing capabilities to preserve the autonomy of the person with dementia. It needs working towards a shared view about what constitutes a problem in the situation. It asks for professionals to advocate for the involvement of people with dementia by helping them participate in ways that strengthen their remaining capacities.

Purpose: The aim of this study was at gaining insight into the participatory design approach of involving people with dementia in the development of the DecideGuide, an interactive web tool facilitating shared decision-making in their care networks., Method: An explanatory case study design was used when developing the DecideGuide. A secondary analysis focused on the data gathered from the participating people with dementia during the development stages: semi-structured interviews (n = 23), four focus group interviews (n = 18), usability tests (n = 3), and a field study (n = 4). Content analysis was applied to the data., Results: Four themes showed to be important regarding the participation experiences of involving people with dementia in research: valuable feedback on content and design of the DecideGuide, motivation to participate, perspectives of people with dementia and others about distress related to involvement, and time investment., Conclusions: People with dementia can give essential feedback and, therefore, their contribution is useful and valuable. Meaningful participation of people with dementia takes time that should be taken into account. It is important for people with dementia to be able to reciprocate the efforts others make and to feel of significance to others. Implications for Rehabilitation People with dementia can contribute meaningfully to the content and design and their perspective is essential for developing useful and user-friendly tools. Participating in research activities may contribute to social inclusion, empowerment, and quality of life of people with dementia.

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) can be a way for staff to adopt international recommendations advocating the involvement of nursing home residents and their family members in care planning and the development of personalized care plans., Objective: The main aim was to analyze the effects of training nursing home staff in the implementation of SDM on agreement of residents' 'life-and-care plans' with the recommendations (primary outcome) and on family caregivers' quality of life and sense of competence, and staff's job satisfaction (secondary outcomes)., Methods: In the intervention condition, staff attended a training program on the use of SDM with residents and family caregivers in the care planning process. In the control condition, care planning as usual took place. For the primary outcome, in-depth qualitative and quantitative analyses of the care plans were performed. Multivariate Permutation Tests were applied to assess the impact on secondary outcomes., Results: Forty-nine residents and family caregivers and 34 professionals were involved. Overall, many of the care plans developed during the intervention showed a high level of agreement with the care planning recommendations. Both Italian and Dutch care plans showed improvement in the number of clear problem statements (p < 0.001). In Italy, significant improvements (p < 0.05) were also found regarding specific care objectives, documentation of objectives met, and of residents and families' involvement. No impact was found on secondary outcomes., Conclusion: The involvement of residents and family caregivers in care planning contributed to an improvement of the residents' care plans, but it did not have an effect on family caregivers and staff outcomes.

Objective: To explore how people with dementia, their informal caregivers and their professionals participate in decision making about daycare and to develop a typology of participation trajectories., Design: A qualitative study with a prospective, multiperspective design, based on 244 semistructured interviews, conducted during three interview rounds over the course of a year. Analysis was by means of content analysis and typology construction., Setting: Community settings and nursing homes in the Netherlands., Participants: 19 people with dementia, 36 of their informal caregivers and 38 of their professionals (including nurses, daycare employees and case managers)., Results: The participants' responses related to three critical points in the decision-making trajectory about daycare: (1) the initial positive or negative expectations of daycare; (2) negotiation about trying out daycare by promoting, resisting or attuning to others; and (3) trying daycare, which resulted in positive or negative reactions from people with dementia and led to a decision. The ways in which care networks proceeded through these three critical points resulted in a typology of participation trajectories, including (1) working together positively toward daycare, (2) bringing conflicting perspectives together toward trying daycare and (3) not reaching commitment to try daycare., Conclusion: Shared decision making with people with dementia is possible and requires and adapted process of decision making. Our results show that initial preferences based on information alone may change when people with dementia experience daycare. It is important to have a try-out period so that people with dementia can experience daycare without having to decide whether to continue it. Whereas shared decision making in general aims at moving from initial preferences to informed preferences, professionals should focus more on moving from initial preferences to experienced preferences for people with dementia. Professionals can play a crucial role in facilitating the possibilities for a try-out period., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

This prospective multiperspective study provides insight into the decision trajectories of people with dementia by studying the decisions made and related key events. This study includes three waves of interviews, conducted between July 2010 and July 2012, with 113 purposefully selected respondents (people with beginning to advanced stages of dementia and their informal and professional caregivers) completed in 12 months (285 interviews). Our multilayered qualitative analysis consists of content analysis, timeline methods, and constant comparison. Four decision themes emerged-managing daily life, arranging support, community living, and preparing for the future. Eight key events delineate the decision trajectories of people with dementia. Decisions and key events differ between people with dementia living alone and living with a caregiver. Our study clarifies that decisions relate not only to the disease but to living with the dementia. Individual differences in decision content and sequence may effect shared decision-making and advance care planning.

Objective: This study describes the process elements of decision-making for dementia, in order to enrich a model to facilitate shared decision-making for professionals working with people with dementia and their informal caregivers., Methods: We performed a qualitative study based on secondary analysis of 117 interviews from 23 care networks consisting of people with dementia, their informal caregivers and professionals. Findings were compared to an existing model of collaborative deliberation., Results: We made an enhancement to the existing collaborative deliberation model, to include: (1) constructive network engagement, (2) recognizing the need for a decision, (3) defining what to decide on, (4) developing alternatives, (5) constructing preferences through deliberation and trying out alternatives, (6) multiple preference integration, and (7) evaluating decision-making., Conclusion: In describing the process elements of decision-making in dementia, this empirical study proposes a modification of the model of collaborative deliberation for the context of dementia care. The adaptation highlights the special attention needed to recognize and define what to decide on, try out alternatives, and handle conflicting interests and preferences., Practice Implications: Professionals should be attentive to mark the start of the decision-making process and work with participants towards a shared view on the pressing matters at hand., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a means of allowing people with dementia to take part in making choices, be autonomous and participate in social activities. Involving them in SDM is an important way of promoting social health. However, including families and dementia residents in decision-making can be challenging for care staff working in nursing homes. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of an SDM framework for care planning in two nursing homes, one in Italy and one in the Netherlands., Methods: Focus group interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals who, after being trained, applied the SDM framework. Content analysis was used to analyze the data., Results: Six months after the feasibility trial, focus group interviews with healthcare professionals (n = 10 in Italy; n = 9 in the Netherlands) were held. We found 6 themes and 15 categories. Within these themes, facilitators and barriers were identified. The categories of team collaboration, communication skills and nursing home policy were found to be facilitators to the implementation process, whereas regulations, lack of funding and of involvement of family caregivers were the main barriers. Family attitudes towards SDM could be both. The main difference between countries concerned the residents' cognitive status that influenced their degree of involvement., Conclusion: Communication skills training for professionals, training of family caregivers, and involvement of the management in the implementation process seem to be crucial factors in successfully implementing SDM in nursing homes, and increasing the involvement of families and dementia residents in decision-making.

Background: In the Netherlands, consent from relatives is obligatory for post mortal donation. This study explored the perspectives of relatives regarding the request for consent for donation in cases without donor registration., Methods: A content analysis of narratives of 24 bereaved relatives (14 in-depth interviews and one letter) of unregistered, eligible, brain-dead donors was performed., Results: Relatives of unregistered, brain-dead patients usually refuse consent for donation, even if they harbour pro-donation attitudes themselves, or knew that the deceased favoured organ donation. Half of those who refused consent for donation mentioned afterwards that it could have been an option. The decision not to consent to donation is attributed to contextual factors, such as feeling overwhelmed by the notification of death immediately followed by the request; not being accustomed to speaking about death; inadequate support from other relatives or healthcare professionals, and lengthy procedures., Conclusion: Healthcare professionals could provide better support to relatives prior to donation requests, address their informational needs and adapt their message to individual circumstances. It is anticipated that the number of consenting families could be enlarged by examining the experience of decoupling and offering the possibility of consent for donation after circulatory death if families refuse consent for donation after brain-death.

Background: This article is part of a study to gain insight into the decision-making process by looking at the views of the relatives of potential brain dead donors. Alongside a literature review, focus interviews were held with healthcare professionals about their role in the request and decision-making process when post-mortal donation is at stake. This article describes the perspectives of the relatives., Methods: A content-analysis of 22 semi-structured in-depth interviews with relatives involved in an organ donation decision., Results: Three themes were identified: 'conditions', 'ethical considerations' and 'look back'. Conditions were: 'sense of urgency', 'incompetence to decide' and 'agreement between relatives'. Ethical considerations result in a dilemma for non-donor families: aiding people or protecting the deceased's body, especially when they do not know his/her preference. Donor families respect the deceased's last will, generally confirmed in the National Donor Register. Looking back, the majority of non-donor families resolved their dilemma by justifying their decision with external arguments (lack of time, information etc.). Some non-donor families would like to be supported during decision-making., Discussion: The discrepancy between general willingness to donate and the actual refusal of a donation request can be explained by multiple factors, with a cumulative effect. Firstly, half of the participants (most non-donor families) stated that they felt that they were not competent to decide in such a crisis and they seem to struggle with utilitarian considerations against their wish to protect the body. Secondly, non-donor families refused telling that they did not know the deceased's wishes or contesting posthumous autonomy of the eligible. Thirdly, the findings emphasise the importance of Donor Registration, because it seems to prevent dilemmas in decision-making, at least for donor families., Conclusion: Discrepancies between willingness to consent to donate and refusal at the bedside can be attributed to an unresolved dilemma: aiding people or protect the body of the deceased. Non-donor families felt incompetent to decide. They refused consent for donation, since their deceased had not given any directive. When ethical considerations do not lead to an unambiguous answer, situational factors were pivotal. Relatives of unregistered eligible donors are more prone to unstable decisions. To overcome ambivalence, coaching during decision-making is worth investigation.

Background: Effectiveness of the donation request is generally measured by consent rates, rather than by relatives' satisfaction with their decision. Our aim was to elicit Dutch ICU staffs' views and experiences with the donation request, to investigate their awareness of (dis)satisfaction with donation decisions by relatives, specifically in the case of refusal, and to collect advice that may leave more relatives satisfied with their decision., Methods: Five focus groups with a total of 32 participants (IC physicians, IC nurses and transplant coordinators) from five university hospitals in the Netherlands. Transcripts were examined using standard qualitative methods., Results: Four themes (donation request perceived by ICU staff from the perspective of relatives; donation request perceived by ICU staff from their own perspective; aftercare; donation in society) divided into 14 categories were identified. According to ICU staff, relatives mentioned their own values more frequently than values of the potential donor as important for the decision. ICU staff observed this imbalance, but reacted empathically to the relatives' point of view. ICU staff rarely suggested reconsideration of refusal and did not ask relatives for arguments. ICU staff did not always feel comfortable with a request in the delicate context of brain death. Sometimes the interests of patient, relatives and those on the waiting list were irreconcilable. ICU staff were mostly unaware of relatives' regret following their decisions. Aftercare did not provide this type of information. Donation request by IC physicians was influenced by the way organ donation has been regulated in society (law, donor register, education, media)., Conclusions: Our findings lead to the hypothesis that giving relatives more time and inviting them to reconsider their initial refusal will lead to a more stable decision and possibly more consent.

Background: Euthanasia has been legally performed in the Netherlands since 2002. Respect for patient's autonomy is the underpinning ethical principal. However, patients have no right to euthanasia, and physicians have no obligation to provide it. Although over 3000 cases are conducted per year in the Netherlands, there is little known about how decision-making occurs and no guidance to support this difficult aspect of clinical practice., Aim: To explore the decision-making process in cases where patients request euthanasia and understand the different themes relevant to optimise this decision-making process., Design: A qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with patients making explicit requests for euthanasia, most-involved relative(s) and treating physician., Participants/setting: Thirty-two cases, 31 relatives and 28 treating physicians. Settings were patients' and relatives' homes and physicians' offices., Results: Five main themes emerged: (1) initiation of sharing views and values about euthanasia, (2) building relationships as part of the negotiation, (3) fulfilling legal requirements, (4) detailed work of preparing and performing euthanasia and (5) aftercare and closing., Conclusions: A patient's request for euthanasia entails a complex process that demands emotional work by all participants. It is characterised by an intensive period of sharing information, relationship building and negotiation in order to reach agreement. We hypothesise that making decisions about euthanasia demands a proactive approach towards participants' preferences and values regarding end of life, towards the needs of relatives, towards the burden placed on physicians and a careful attention to shared decision-making. Future research should address the communicational skills professionals require for such complex decision-making.

Background: Deciding about the organ donation of one's brain-dead beloved often occurs in an unexpected and delicate situation. We explored the decision making of the relatives of potential brain-dead donors, its evaluation, and the factors influencing decision making., Methods: We used the integrative review method. Our search included 10 databases. Inclusion criteria were presence of the donation request or the subsequent decision process. Three authors independently assessed the eligibility of identified articles., Results: Content analysis of 70 included articles led to three themes: decision, evaluation, and support. We extracted results and recommendations concerning these three themes. The timing of the request and understandable information influence the decision. The relatives evaluate their decision differently: in case of refusal, approximately one third regret their decision, and in case of consent, approximately one tenth mention regret. The relatives are often ambivalent about their values (protection, altruism, and respect) and the deceased's wishes, not wanting additional suffering either for their beloved or for themselves. Support is mainly focused on increasing consent rates and less on satisfaction with the decision., Conclusions: Evaluation of decision making by the relatives of potential brain-dead donors reveals possibilities for improving the decision process. Special skills of the requester, attention to the circumstances, and unconditional support for the relatives might prevent the relatives' regret about refusal and unnecessary loss of organs. We hypothesize that support in exploring the relatives' values and the deceased's wishes can lead to stable decisions. This hypothesis deserves further investigation.

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]

Advance care planning (ACP) is seldom initiated with people with dementia (PWD) and mainly focuses on medical end-of-life decisions. We studied the effects of an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) aimed at initiating and optimizing ACP, with a focus on discussing medical and nonmedical preferences of future care. A single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. In 2016, 38 Dutch GPs (all from different practices) completed the study. They recruited 140 PWD, aged ≥65 years at any stage and with any type of dementia, from their practice. Intervention group GPs were trained in ACP, including shared decision-making and role-playing exercises. Control group GPs provided usual care. The primary outcome was ACP initiation: the proportion of PWD that had at least 1 ACP conversation documented in their medical file. Key secondary outcomes were the number of medical (ie, resuscitation, hospital admission) and nonmedical (ie, activities, social contacts) preferences discussed. At the 6-month follow-up, subjects' medical records were analyzed using random effect logistics and linear models with correction for GP clustering. 38 GP clusters (19 intervention; 19 control) included 140 PWD (intervention 73; control 67). Four PWD (2.9%) dropped out on the primary and key secondary outcomes. After 6 months, intervention group GPs initiated ACP with 35 PWD (49.3%), and control group GPs initiated ACP with 9 PWD (13.9%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.99; P =.002]. Intervention group GPs discussed 0.8 more medical [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3, 1.3; P =.003] and 1.5 more nonmedical (95% CI 0.8, 2.3; P <.001) preferences per person with dementia than control group GPs. Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. This intervention has the potential to better align future care of PWD with their preferences but because of the short follow-up, the GPs' long-term adoption remains unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]