Search

Background: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) can be used for patients at the end of life who suffer intolerably from severe symptoms that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the Netherlands, the use of CDS is guided by an national guideline since 2005. The percentage of patients for whom CDS is used increased from 8% of all patients who died in 2005 to 18% in 2015. The aim of this study is to explore potential causes of the rise in the use of CDS in the Netherlands according to health care providers who have been participating in this practice. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants were Dutch health care providers (HCPs), working at patients' homes, hospices, elderly care facilities and in hospitals and experienced in providing CDS, who were recruited via purposeful sampling. Results: 41 Health care providers participated in an interview. For these HCPs the reason to start CDS is often a combination of symptoms resulting in a refractory state. HCPs indicated that symptoms of non-physical origin are increasingly important in the decision to start CDS. Most HCPs felt that suffering at the end of life is less tolerated by patients, their relatives, and sometimes by HCPs; they report more requests to relieve suffering by using CDS. Some HCPs in our study have experienced increasing pressure to perform CDS. Some HCPs stated that they more often used intermittent sedation, sometimes resulting in CDS. Conclusions: This study provides insight into how participating HCPs perceive that their practice of CDS changed over time. The combination of a broader interpretation of refractory suffering by HCPs and a decreased tolerance of suffering at the end of life by patients, their relatives and HCPs, may have led to a lower threshold to start CDS. Trial registration: The Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht assessed that the study was exempt from ethical review according to Dutch law (Protocol number 19–435/C). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance care planning supports patients to reflect on and discuss preferences for future treatment and care. Studies of the impact of advance care planning on healthcare use and healthcare costs are scarce. Aim: To determine the impact on healthcare use and costs of an advance care planning intervention across six European countries. Design: Cluster-randomised trial, registered as ISRCTN63110516, of advance care planning conversations supported by certified facilitators. Setting/participants: Patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer from 23 hospitals in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK. Data on healthcare use were collected from hospital medical files during 12 months after inclusion. Results: Patients with a good performance status were underrepresented in the intervention group (p < 0.001). Intervention and control patients spent on average 9 versus 8 days in hospital (p = 0.07) and the average number of X-rays was 1.9 in both groups. Fewer intervention than control patients received systemic cancer treatment; 79% versus 89%, respectively (p < 0.001). Total average costs of hospital care during 12 months follow-up were €32,700 for intervention versus €40,700 for control patients (p = 0.04 with bootstrap analyses). Multivariable multilevel models showed that lower average costs of care in the intervention group related to differences between study groups in country, religion and WHO-status. No effect of the intervention on differences in costs between study groups was observed (p = 0.3). Conclusions: Lower care costs as observed in the intervention group were mainly related to patients' characteristics. A definite impact of the intervention itself could not be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study conducted to assess the opinions of Dutch physicians, nurses and the general public on the legal necessities for euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). It concluded as the health care professionals and the general public mostly supports the legal requirements for euthanasia and PAS, which is permitted by the Dutch Euthanasia Act, and has great support for the law. Topics include data collection, characteristics of respondents, and statistical analysis.

Background: Some people request euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) even though they are not (severely) ill. In the Netherlands the presence of sufficient medical ground for the suffering is a strict prerequisite for EAS. The desirability of this 'medical ground'-boundary is currently questioned. Legislation has been proposed to facilitate EAS for older persons with "completed life" or "tiredness of life" in the absence of (severe) illness., Objectives: To describe the characteristics and motivations of persons whose requests for EAS in the absence of (severe) illness did not result in EAS and the decision-making process of medical professionals in these types of requests., Methods: Analysis of 237 applicant records of the Dutch Euthanasia Expertise Center. We studied both the perspectives of applicants and medical professionals., Findings: The majority of the applicants were women (73%) aged 75 years and older (79%). Applicants most often indicated physical suffering as element of suffering and reason for the request. Medical professionals indicated in 40% of the cases no or insufficient medical ground for the suffering., Conclusions: Physical suffering plays an important role in requests for EAS even for persons who are not (severely) ill. From the presence of physical suffering it does not necessarily follow that for medical professionals there is sufficient medical ground to comply with the 'medical ground'-boundary., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The appropriate use of artificial nutrition or hydration (ANH) for patients with advanced dementia continues to be a subject of debate. We investigated opinions of Dutch and Australian doctors about the use of ANH in patients with advanced dementia. We interviewed 15 Dutch doctors and 16 Australian doctors who care for patients with advanced dementia. We transcribed and analysed the interviews and held consensus meetings about the interpretation. We found that Dutch and Australian doctors use similar medical considerations when they decide about the use of ANH. In general, they are reluctant to start ANH. Disparities between the Dutch and Australian doctors are related to the process of decision-making: Dutch doctors seem to put more emphasis on a comprehensive assessment of the patient's actual situation, whereas Australian doctors are more inclined to use scientific evidence and advance directives. Furthermore, Dutch doctors take the primary responsibility themselves whereas Australian general practitioners seem to be more inclined to leave the decision to the family. It seems that Dutch and Australian doctors use somewhat different care approaches for patients with advanced dementia. Combining the Dutch comprehensive approach and the Australian analytic approach may serve the interest of patients and their families best.