Search

Objectives: Solidarity-based healthcare systems are being challenged by the incremental costs of new and expensive medicines for cancer and rare diseases. To regulate reimbursement of such drugs, the Dutch government introduced a policy instrument known as the Coverage Lock (CL) in 2015. Little is known about the public opinion regarding such policy instruments and their consequences, i.e., reimbursement of some, but not all, expensive medicines. We aimed to identify the preferences of Dutch citizens regarding the reimbursement of expensive medicines, and to investigate the views of the public on the use of the CL as a healthcare policy instrument and their input for improvement. Methods: Web-based survey of a representative sample of 1999 Dutch citizens aged 18 years and older (panel of research company Kantar Public). Potential respondents were approached via e-mail. Several policy measures, real-life cases and statements related to the CL were presented in the survey to respondents. Their responses were analysed by tabulating descriptive statistics (proportions and percentages). Results: 1179 individuals (response rate 59%) filled in the questionnaire. Although a majority considered the CL policy unjustified, they preferred it to the alternative policy measures that were presented. In four real-life case descriptions of patients in need of expensive medicines, respondents most often indicated effectiveness, lack of availability of alternative treatment and improved quality of life due to treatment as reasons for a positive reimbursement decision. An unfavourable cost-benefit ratio was their main reason to be against reimbursement. Some argued that withholding reimbursement was a way of informing manufacturers that extremely high prices are unacceptable. Conclusion: There is public support for patients in need of expensive medicine. Many respondents supported the CL as a reimbursement policy. However, there is a wish to optimize the interpretation of the assessment criteria and the weight these are attributed in decision making about reimbursement of expensive innovative medicine for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine how an advance care planning (ACP) intervention based on structured conversations impacts the relationship between patients with advanced cancer and their nominated Personal Representatives (PRs). Methods: Within the ACTION research project, a qualitative study was carried out in 4 countries (Italy, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Slovenia) to explore the lived experience of engagement with the ACTION Respecting Choices® ACP intervention from the perspectives of patients and their PRs. A phenomenological approach was undertaken. Results: Our findings show that taking part in the ACTION ACP intervention provides a communicative space for patients and their PRs to share their understanding and concerns about the illness and its consequences. In some cases, this may strengthen relationships by realigning patients' and PRs' understanding and expectations and affirming their mutual commitment and support. Significance of results: The most significant consequence of the ACP process in our study was the deepening of mutual understanding and relationship between some patients and PRs and the enhancement of their sense of mutuality and connectedness in the present. However, being a relational intervention, ACP may raise some challenging and distressing issues. The interpersonal dynamics of the discussion require skilled and careful professional facilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author(s): Monika C. Kerckhoffs [sup.1], Felicia F. L. Kosasi [sup.1], Ivo W. Soliman [sup.1], Johannes J. M. van Delden [sup.2], Olaf L. Cremer [sup.1], Dylan W. de Lange [sup.1], Arjen [...], Purpose Survivors of critical illness often suffer from reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) due to long-term physical, cognitive, and mental health problems, also known as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Some intensive care unit (ICU) survivors even consider their state of health unacceptable. The aim of this study was to investigate the determinants of self-reported unacceptable outcome of ICU treatment. Methods Patients who were admitted to the ICU for at least 48 h and survived the first year after discharge completed validated questionnaires on overall HRQoL and the components of PICS and stated whether they considered their current state of health an acceptable outcome of ICU treatment. The effects of overall HRQoL and components of PICS on unacceptable outcome were studied using multiple logistic regression analysis. Results Of 1453 patients, 67 (5%) reported their health state an unacceptable outcome of ICU treatment. These patients had a lower score on overall HRQoL (EQ-5D-index value of 0.57 vs. 0.81; p < 0.001), but we could not determine a cutoff value of the EQ-5D-index value that reliably identified unacceptable outcome. In the multivariate analysis, only the hospital anxiety and depression scale was significantly associated with an unacceptable outcome (OR 2.06, 99% CI 1.18-3.61). Conclusions Although there is a strong association between low overall HRQoL and self-reported unacceptable outcome of ICU treatment, patients with low overall HRQoL may still consider their outcome acceptable. The mental component of PICS, but not the physical and cognitive component, is strongly associated with self-reported unacceptable outcome.

Background: The incidence of continuous deep sedation (CDS) has more than doubled over the last decade in The Netherlands, while reasons for this increase are not fully understood. Patients and relatives have an essential role in deciding on CDS. We hypothesize that the increase in CDS practice is related to the changing role of patients and relatives in deciding on CDS. Objective: To describe perceptions and experiences of patients and relatives with regard to CDS. This insight may help professionals and policymakers to better understand and respond to the evolving practice of CDS. Methods: Qualitative interviews were held with patients and relatives who had either personal experience with CDS as a relative or had contemplated CDS for themselves. Results: The vast majority of respondents appreciated CDS as a palliative care option, and none of the respondents reported (moral) objections to CDS. The majority of respondents prioritized avoiding suffering at the end of life. The patients and families generally considered CDS a palliative care option for which they can choose. Likewise, according to our respondents, the decision to start CDS was made by them, instead of the physician. Negative experiences with CDS care were mostly related to loss of sense of agency, due to insufficient communication or information provision by healthcare professionals. Lack of continuity of care was also a source of distress. We observed a variety in the respondents' understanding of the distinction between CDS and other end‐of‐life care decisions, including euthanasia. Some perceived CDS as hastening death. Conclusion: The traditional view of CDS as a last resort option for a physician to relieve a patient's suffering at the end of life is not explicit among patients and relatives. Instead, our results show that they perceive CDS as a regular palliative care option. Along with this normalization of CDS, patients and relatives claim a substantial say in the decision‐making and are mainly motivated by a wish to avoid suffering and exercise control at the end of life. These distinct views on CDS of patients, their relatives and healthcare providers should be reconciled in guidelines and protocols for CDS. Patient or Public Contribution: One of the authors in our team (G. H.) has experience with CDS as a relative and ensured that the patient/relative viewpoint was adequately reflected in the design and conduct of our study. In the preliminary phase of our study, G. H. adjusted the topic list so it was better adapted to the current practice of CDS. During the data analysis, G. H. read several interviews and took part in the open and critical discussion on central themes and core concepts as an important member of the author team, thereby guaranteeing the central position of the patient/relative perspective in our final research outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]