Search

To examine how relatives evaluate the quality of communication with the treating physician of a dying resident in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and to assess its differences between countries. A cross-sectional retrospective study in a representative sample of LTCFs conducted in 2015. Relatives of residents who died during the previous 3 months were sent a questionnaire. 761 relatives of deceased residents in 241 LTCFs in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland. The Family Perception of Physician-Family Communication (FPPFC) scale (ratings from 0 to 3, where 3 means the highest quality) was used to retrospectively assess how the quality of end-of-life communication with treating physicians was perceived by relatives. We applied multilevel linear and logistic regression models to assess differences between countries and LTCF types. The FPPFC score was the lowest in Finland (1.4 ± 0.8) and the highest in Italy (2.2 ± 0.7). In LTCFs served by general practitioners, the FPPFC score differed between countries, but did not in LTCFs with on-site physicians. Most relatives reported that they were well informed about a resident's general condition (from 50.8% in Finland to 90.6% in Italy) and felt listened to (from 53.1% in Finland to 84.9% in Italy) and understood by the physician (from 56.7% in Finland to 85.8% in Italy). In most countries, relatives assessed the worst communication as being about the resident's wishes for medical treatment at the end of life, with the lowest rate of satisfied relatives in Finland (37.6%). The relatives' perception of the quality of end-of-life communication with physicians differs between countries. However, in all countries, physicians' communication needs to be improved, especially regarding resident's wishes for medical care at the end of life. Training in end-of-life communication to physicians providing care for LTCF residents is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COPD causes high morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for palliative care. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of palliative care in patients with COPD. Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial (COMPASSION study; Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644, 07-04-2019). Healthcare providers within the intervention group were trained to implement palliative care components into routine COPD care. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, after 3 and 6 months; medical records were assessed after 12 months. The primary outcome was quality of life (FACIT-Pal). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, spiritual well-being, satisfaction with care, acute healthcare use, documentation of life-sustaining treatment preferences and place of death. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used for analyses. Setting: Eight hospital regions in the Netherlands. Participants: Patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD and positive ProPal-COPD score. Results: Of 222 patients included, 106 responded to the questionnaire at 6 months. Thirty-six of 98 intervention patients (36.7%) received the intervention. Intention-to-treat-analysis showed no effect on the primary outcome (adjusted difference: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: −5.44 to 7.60). In the intervention group, fewer intensive care admissions for COPD took place (adjusted odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.81) and strong indications were found for fewer hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.46–1.03). Conclusions: We found no evidence that palliative care improves quality of life in patients with COPD. However, it can potentially reduce acute healthcare use. The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic led to suboptimal implementation and insufficient power, and may have affected some of our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: The Surprise Question (" Would I be surprised if this patient were to die within the next 12 months?") is widely used to identify palliative patients, though with low predictive value. To improve timely identification of palliative care needs, we propose an additional Surprise Question (" Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months?") if the original Surprise Question is answered with "no." The combination of the two questions is called the Double Surprise Question. Aim: To examine the prognostic accuracy of the Double Surprise Question in outpatients with cancer. Design: A prospective study. Participants: Twelve medical oncologists completed the Double Surprise Question for 379 patients. Results: In group 1 (original Surprise Question "yes": surprised if dead) 92.1% (176/191) of the patients were still alive after 1 year, in group 2a (original and additional Surprise Question "no": not surprised if dead and not surprised if alive) 60.0% (63/105), and in group 2b (original Surprise Question "no," additional Surprise Question "yes": surprised if alive) 26.5% (22/83) (p < 0.0001). The positive predictive value increased by using the Double Surprise Question; 74% (61/83) vs 55% (103/188). Anticipatory palliative care provision and Advance Care Planning items were most often documented in group 2b. Conclusions: The Double Surprise Question is a promising tool to more accurately identify outpatients with cancer at risk of dying within 1 year, and therefore, those in need of palliative care. Studies should reveal whether the implementation of the Double Surprise Question leads to more timely palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The provision of high-quality palliative care in nursing homes (NHs) is a major challenge and places demands on the knowledge and skills of the staff. Aim: This study assesses the palliative care knowledge of staff in NHs in Europe. Design: Cross-sectional study using structured survey. Setting/participants: Nurses and care assistants working in 322 representative samples of NHs in Belgium, the Netherlands, England, Finland, Poland and Italy. Palliative care knowledge is measured with the Palliative Care Survey. Scores on the scales range between 0 and 1; higher scores indicate more knowledge. Results: A total of 3392 NH-staff were given a questionnaire, and 2275 responded (67%). Knowledge of basic palliative care issues ranged between 0.20 in Poland (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19; 0.24) and 0.61 in Belgium (95% CI 0.59; 0.63), knowledge of physical aspects that can contribute to pain ranged between 0.81 in Poland (95% CI 0.79; 0.84) and 0.91 in the Netherlands (95% CI 0.89; 0.93), and knowledge of psychological reasons that can contribute to pain ranged between 0.56 in England (95% CI 0.50; 0.62) and 0.87 in Finland (95% CI 0.83; 0.90). Factors associated with knowledge were country, professional role and having undertaken formal training in palliative care. Conclusions: Knowledge of nurses and care assistants concerning basic palliative care issues appears to be suboptimal in all participating countries, although there is substantial heterogeneity. Education of nursing staff needs to be improved across, but each country may require its own strategy to address the unique and specific knowledge gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Many patients with cancer suffer from pain, which is often not optimally treated. In 2008, the evidence-based, multidisciplinary Dutch guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of pain in this patient group was published. We assessed knowledge about and adherence to the guideline by pain specialists. Methods A cross-sectional case vignette survey describing a palliative patient with intractable pancreatic cancer and pain was sent to all 350 Dutch anesthesiologists registered as pain specialists at the Netherlands Association of Anesthesiology. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results Ninety-three pain specialists completed the questionnaire (27%). The majority appeared to follow the guideline recommendations on pharmacological (99%) and invasive treatment (95%) in the diverse stages of the disease. However, the recommendation to use a one-dimensional pain scale to evaluate the effect of pain treatment and the recommendation to perform a multidimensional pain assessment if the patient in pain is in a deteriorating stage were only followed by a minority of the respondents (23% and 15%, respectively). Conclusions Regarding most recommendations, Dutch pain specialists know and intend to follow the national multidisciplinary cancer pain guideline. Yet, only a minority of them perform structural pain assessment of the patient with cancer pain. However, as the response rate was low (27%), the results should be interpreted with caution and cannot be generalized to the entire population of pain specialists in the Netherlands. We recommend that, in the guideline update and implementation programs, more attention be given to thorough assessment of the patient with pain and cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of completing an exercise program in patients with advanced cancer and to obtain preliminary data of its impact on physical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Methods: We conducted a nonrandomized pilot study. Participants were 26 palliative care patients with advanced cancer (mean age=54.5 years; standard deviation [SD] 8.9 years) of the outpatient clinic of the medical oncology and the urology departments of a medical center in The Netherlands. Participants followed an individually graded group exercise program, consisting of resistance training and aerobic exercise, twice a week during 6 weeks. Feasibility of the training program, muscle strength, aerobic fitness, body composition, QoL, fatigue, and physical role, social, and activities of daily living (ADL) functioning were assessed at baseline and immediately after the intervention. Results: Dropout rate during the training period was 35% due to disease progression. After the training period, based on intention to treat analysis, muscle strength and aerobic functional fitness had increased significantly ( p≤0.01). A significant decrease in fat percentage ( p≤0.02) was observed. QoL had increased significantly ( p≤0.02), as well as social ( p≤0.04), physical role ( p≤0.01), and ADL functioning ( p≤0.05). Fatigue decreased significantly on the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) and RAND-36 questionnaires ( p≤0.02), however not on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 ( p=0.48). No change in physical functioning was observed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and RAND-36 (respectively, p=0.33 and p=0.09). Conclusions: These preliminary results show that physical exercise in patients with advanced cancer is feasible. A significant impact was observed on physical and QoL outcomes. These findings need to be confirmed with a larger-scale, randomized controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]