What is case management in palliative care? An expert panel study

Contains fulltext : 110207.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Case management is a heterogeneous concept of care that consists of assessment, planning, implementing, coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating the options and services required to meet the client's health and service needs. This paper describes the result of an expert panel procedure to gain insight into the aims and characteristics of case management in palliative care in the Netherlands. METHODS: A modified version of the RAND(R)/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) appropriateness method was used to formulate and rate a list of aims and characteristics of case management in palliative care. A total of 76 health care professionals, researchers and policy makers were invited to join the expert panel, of which 61% participated in at least one round. RESULTS: Nine out of ten aims of case management were met with agreement. The most important areas of disagreement with regard to characteristics of case management were hands-on nursing care by the case manager, target group of case management, performance of other tasks besides case management and accessibility of the case manager. CONCLUSIONS: Although aims are agreed upon, case management in palliative care shows a high level of variability in implementation choices. Case management should aim at maintaining continuity of care to ensure that patients and those close to them experience care as personalised, coherent and consistent

The patient's relationship with the General Practitioner before and after Advance Care Planning: pre/post-implementation study

BACKGROUND: General Practitioners (GPs) are central in the care of Dutch older people and in a good position to have Advance Care Planning (ACP) conversations. Interview studies reveal that the doctor-patient relationship is important when initiating ACP conversations and can also be influenced by ACP conversations. We aimed to examine the association between having an ACP conversation and the patient feeling the GP knows him or her and the patient trusting the GP and vice versa. METHODS: Implementation of ACP in primary care was evaluated in a pre-and post design. Questionnaires before implementation of ACP and 14 months later were sent to patients aged 75 years or older within 10 GP-practices and 2 care homes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the relationship between ACP conversations during implementation and the patient-GP relationship before implementation. Odds ratios were adjusted for potential confounders. Generalized ordered logistic regression was used to model the relationship between the changes in patient-GP relationship before and after implementation and ACP conversations during implementation. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-eight patients filled out the pre- and post-test questionnaire. There was no association between the GP knowing the patient and trust in the pre-test and having an ACP conversation during the implementation. For people who had had an ACP conversation at the end of the implementation period their trust remained more often the same or was higher after implementation (trust to provide good care OR 2.93; trust to follow their wishes OR 2.59), compared to patients who did not have an ACP conversation. A reduction in trust was less likely to happen to patients who had an ACP conversation compared to patients who did not have an ACP conversation. CONCLUSIONS: Although we have not found evidence for trust as a prerequisite for ACP conversations, this paper shows that ACP conversations can be beneficial for the doctor-patient relationship

Continuity of GP care after the last hospitalization for patients who died from cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure: a retrospective cohort study using administrative data

BACKGROUND: Discharge from hospital to home can be a stressful experience for patients and carers. Contact with the GP is important to ensure continuity of care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate timing of contact with the GP and locum after the last hospitalization in the last year of life and to investigate patient and care characteristics related to contact with the GP within 2 days after discharge. METHODS: Health insurance data were combined with data from Statistics Netherlands on patients who mainly received care at home in the last 4 months of life. Patients who died from cancer (n = 3014), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, n = 195) or heart failure (n = 171) were compared. RESULTS: First contact after hospital discharge was within 2 days for 51.7% of patients and within a week for 77.8% of patients. Patients who died from COPD or heart failure had contact less often than patients with cancer. Characteristics related to having contact within 2 days after discharge were older age, cause of death cancer, home death, timing of last hospitalization closer to death and contact with a locum in the week after discharge. CONCLUSION: Results may indicate that the GP is likely to visit patients with more care needs sooner. This would be in accordance with the finding that contact with the GP was more likely after a hospitalization closer to death and that contact within 2 days was related to contact with a locum within a week after discharge. Proactive care is necessary. This is a joint responsibility of GPs and medical specialists

Diversity in Advance Care Planning and End-Of-Life Conversations: Discourses of Healthcare Professionals and Researchers

To meet the end-of-life needs of all patients, ongoing conversations about values and preferences regarding end-of-life care are essential. Aspects of social identity are associated with disparities in end-of-life care outcomes. Therefore, accounting for patient diversity in advance care planning and end-of-life conversations is important for equitable end-of-life practices. We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews to explore how Dutch healthcare professionals and researchers conceptualized diversity in advance care planning and end-of-life conversations and how they envision diversity-responsive end-of-life care and research. Using thematic discourse analysis, we identified five ‘diversity discourses’: the categorical discourse; the diversity as a determinant discourse; the diversity in norms and values discourse; the everyone is unique discourse, and the anti-essentialist discourse. These discourses may have distinct implications for diversity-responsive end-of-life conversations, care and research. Awareness and reflection on these discourses may contribute to more inclusive end-of-life practices

Information meetings on end-of-life care for older people by the general practitioner to stimulate advance care planning: a pre-post evaluation study

Abstract Background To increase knowledge about options people have concerning end-of-life-care issues, General Practitioners (GPs) can organise meetings to inform their older patients. We evaluated these meetings, using the following research questions: How did the attendees experience the information meeting? Was there a rise in Advance Care Planning (ACP) behaviour after the information meeting? Was there a change in trust people have that physicians will provide good care at the end of life and that they will follow their end-of-life wishes after the information meetings? Methods Four GPs invited all patients of 75 years and older registered in their GP practices to the meeting via a written letter. Four meetings of 2 h took place in 2016. Meetings started with a presentation on end-of-life topics and ACP by the GP followed by time for questions. A pre-post evaluation study was done using written questionnaires distributed and filled in at the start of the meeting (T0) at the end of the meeting (T1) and 6 months after the meeting (T2). Results In total 225 older people attended a meeting of which 154 (68%) filled in the questionnaire at T0 and 145 (64%) filled in the questionnaire at T1. After six months, 90 of the 121 people who approved of being sent another questionnaire at T2, returned it (40%). The average age of the respondents was 80 years (T0). The meetings were evaluated positively by the attendees (T1). ACP issues (appointing a proxy, resuscitation, hospitalisation, euthanasia, treatment preferences under certain circumstances, preferred place of care and nursing home admittance) were discussed with a physician, a relative or both more often in the 6 months after having attended the meeting (T2), compared to before (T0). Compared to before the meeting (T0), trust in the GP providing good end-of-life care and following end-of-life wishes was higher immediately after the meeting (T1), but not after 6 months (T2). Conclusion Information meetings on end-of-life care by GPs have a positive influence on the occurrence of ACP, both with the physician and others. Although, this method especially reaches the older people that are already interested in the subject, this seems a relatively easy way to stimulate ACP

Diversity in Advance Care Planning and End-Of-Life Conversations: Discourses of Healthcare Professionals and Researchers

To meet the end-of-life needs of all patients, ongoing conversations about values and preferences regarding end-of-life care are essential. Aspects of social identity are associated with disparities in end-of-life care outcomes. Therefore, accounting for patient diversity in advance care planning and end-of-life conversations is important for equitable end-of-life practices. We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews to explore how Dutch healthcare professionals and researchers conceptualized diversity in advance care planning and end-of-life conversations and how they envision diversity-responsive end-of-life care and research. Using thematic discourse analysis, we identified five ‘diversity discourses’: the categorical discourse; the diversity as a determinant discourse; the diversity in norms and values discourse; the everyone is unique discourse, and the anti-essentialist discourse. These discourses may have distinct implications for diversity-responsive end-of-life conversations, care and research. Awareness and reflection on these discourses may contribute to more inclusive end-of-life practices

End-of-life treatment preference discussions between older people and their physician before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross sectional and longitudinal analyses from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam

Abstract Background COVID-19 could lead to hospitalisation and ICU admission, especially in older adults. Therefore, during the pandemic, it became more important to discuss wishes and preferences, such as older peoples’ desire for intensive treatment in a hospital in acute situations, or not. This study explores what percentage of Dutch older people aged 75 and over discussed Advance Care Planning (ACP) topics with a physician during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic and whether this was different in these people before the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Data of two ancillary data collections of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam were used: the LASA 75 PLUS study and the LASA COVID-19 study. The latter provided cross sectional data (during COVID-19; n = 428) and longitudinal data came from participants in both studies (before and during COVID-19; n = 219). Results Most older adults had thought about ACP topics during COVID-19 (76,4%), and a minority had also discussed ACP topics with a physician (20.3%). Thinking about ACP topics increased during COVID-19 compared to before COVID-19 in a sample with measurements on both timeframes (82,5% vs 68,0%). Not thinking about ACP topics decreased in the first months of the COVID-pandemic compared to before COVID-19 for all ACP topics together (68.0% vs 82.2%) and each topic separately (hospital 42.0% vs 63.9%; nursing home 36.5% vs 53.3%; treatment options 47.0% vs 62.1%; resuscitation 53.0% vs 70.7%). Conclusions Older people do think about ACP topics, which is an important first step in ACP, and this has increased during COVID-19. However, discussing ACP topics with a physician is still not that common. General practitioners could therefore take the initiative in broaching the subject of ACP. This can for instance be done by organizing information meetings

Involvement of a Case Manager in Palliative Care Reduces Hospitalisations at the End of Life in Cancer Patients; A Mortality Follow-Back Study in Primary Care.

Case managers have been introduced in primary palliative care in the Netherlands; these are nurses with expertise in palliative care who offer support to patients and informal carers in addition to the care provided by the general practitioner (GP) and home-care nurse.To compare cancer patients with and without additional support from a case manager on: 1) the patients' general characteristics, 2) characteristics of care and support given by the GP, 3) palliative care outcomes.This article is based on questionnaire data provided by GPs participating in two different studies: the Sentimelc study (280 cancer patients) and the Capalca study (167 cancer patients). The Sentimelc study is a mortality follow-back study amongst a representative sample of GPs that monitors the care provided via GPs to a general population of end-of-life patients. Data from 2011 and 2012 were analysed. The Capalca study is a prospective study investigating the implementation and outcome of the support provided by case managers in primary palliative care. Data were gathered between March 2011 and December 2013.The GP is more likely to know the preferred place of death (OR 7.06; CI 3.47-14.36), the place of death is more likely to be at the home (OR 2.16; CI 1.33-3.51) and less likely to be the hospital (OR 0.26; CI 0.13-0.52), and there are fewer hospitalisations in the last 30 days of life (none: OR 1.99; CI 1.12-3.56 and one: OR 0.54; CI 0.30-0.96), when cancer patients receive additional support from a case manager compared with patients receiving the standard GP care.Involvement of a case manager has added value in addition to palliative care provided by the GP, even though the role of the case manager is 'only' advisory and he or she does not provide hands-on care or prescribe medication

General characteristics of cancer patients with additional support from a case manager and patients receiving standard GP care.

<p>^† Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise. GP = general practitioner; CM = case manager. Total number of patients is 447. Missing values per variable: Age: no missing values, Sex: 2 missing values (Study on case managers 0; Standard GP care 2), Type of cancer: 35 missing values (Study on case managers 4; Standard GP care 31).</p><p>^†† Dependent variables coded ‘Standard GP care’ = 0; ‘Study on case managers ‘ = 1. OR = Odds ratio; CI = 95% confidence interval. Confidence intervals not including the value 1 are considered statistically significant and are boldfaced.</p><p>^§ Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age</p><p>General characteristics of cancer patients with additional support from a case manager and patients receiving standard GP care.</p

Preferred place of death, place of death, and number of transfers and hospitalisations of cancer patients with additional support from a case manager and patients receiving standard GP care.

<p>^† Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise. GP = general practitioner; CM = case manager. Total number of patients is 447. Missing values per variable: Preferred place of death known: no missing values, Died at preferred place of death: 90 missing values (Study on case managers 10; Standard GP care 80), Place of death: 2 missing values (Study on case managers 0; Standard GP care 2), Number of transfers: 78 missing values (Study on case managers 73; Standard GP care 5), Number of hospitalisations: 78 missing values (Study on case managers 73; Standard GP care 5).</p><p>^†† Dependent variables coded ‘Standard GP care’ = 0; ‘Study on case managers’ = 1. OR = Odds ratio; CI = 95% confidence interval. Confidence intervals not including the value 1 are considered statistically significant and are boldfaced.</p><p>^§ Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age</p><p>Preferred place of death, place of death, and number of transfers and hospitalisations of cancer patients with additional support from a case manager and patients receiving standard GP care.</p