Validation of the supportive and palliative care indicators tool in a geriatric population

Background: Timely identification of patients in need of palliative care is especially challenging in a geriatric population because of prognostic uncertainty. The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT (TM)) aims at facilitating this identification, yet has not been validated in a geriatric population. Objective: This study validates the SPICT in a geriatric patient population admitted to the hospital. Design: This is a retrospective cohort study. Setting: Subject were patients admitted to the acute geriatric ward of a Belgian university hospital between January 1 and June 30, 2014. Measurements: Data including demographics, functional status, comorbidities, treatment limitation decision (TLD), and one-year mortality were collected. SPICT was measured retrospectively by an independent assessor. Results: Out of 435 included patients, 54.7% had a positive SPICT, using a cut-off value of 2 for the general indicators and a cut-off value of 1 for the clinical questions. SPICT-positive patients were older (p = 0.033), more frequently male (p = 0.028), and had more comorbidities (p = 0.015) than SPICT-negative patients. The overall one-year mortality was 32.2%, 48.7% in SPICT-positive patients, and 11.5% in SPICT-negative patients (p < 0.001). SPICT predicted one-year mortality with a sensitivity of 0.841 and a specificity of 0.579. The area under the curve of the general indicators (0.758) and the clinical indicators of SPICT (0.748) did not differ (p = 0.638). In 71.4% of SPICT-positive cases, a TLD was present versus 26.9% in SPICT-negative cases (p < 0.001). Conclusion: SPICT seems to be valuable for identifying geriatric patients in need of palliative care as it demonstrates significant association with one-year mortality and with clinical survival predictions of experienced geriatricians, as reflected by TLDs given

Flemish healthcare providers' attitude towards tiredness of life and euthanasia : a survey study

Objectives: To explore the legal understanding and attitudes of nurses and physicians in both acute and chronic geriatric care (Flanders, Belgium) regarding euthanasia in the context of tiredness of life in older people. Method: Healthcare providers employed in acute care (59 geriatricians and 75 nurses of acute geriatric wards), as well as chronic care (135 general practitioners (GPs) and 76 nurses employed in nursing homes and home care services) were sent a survey with four case vignettes. For each case vignette, respondents were asked the following questions: (1) 'Does this case fit the due-care criteria of the euthanasia law?', (2) 'Do you consider this person to be tired of life?', (3) 'Can you comprehend this person's euthanasia request?'. Results: In cases of severe and life-limiting physical suffering, where the patient meets the legal criteria for euthanasia in Belgium, only 50% of physicians and nurses are aware of this legal basis. In case of tiredness of life without underlying pathology, nurses showed more comprehension for the euthanasia request compared to physicians (43.0% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.001). Physicians tend to assess the legal base of an euthanasia-request depending on the severity of physical morbidity, whereas nurses show a greater comprehension towards euthanasia-requests even in absence of severe illness. Geriatricians are more reserved regarding performing euthanasia themselves as compared to GPs, regardless of underlying pathology or reason for the euthanasia-request (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The legal understanding and attitude of Flemish physicians and nurses towards tiredness of life and euthanasia in older patients differed to a great extent. This study showed (1) a lack of awareness of the legal basis for euthanasia in the context of ToL among all HCPs, (2) differences in the extent of comprehension between nurses and physicians and (3) differences in willingness to actually perform euthanasia between geriatricians and GPs. So even with the formulation of strict due-care criteria there is still room for interpretation. This creates a gray area and a discussion point between healthcare providers