Health care professionals' perceptions towards lifelong learning in palliative care for general practitioners: a focus group study

Background: There is a growing need for palliative care. The majority of palliative patients prefer their general practitioner (GP) to organize their palliative home care. General practitioners need a range of competences to perform this task. However, there has been no general description so far of how GPs keep these competences up-to-date. The present study explores current experiences, views and preferences towards training and education in palliative care among GPs, palliative home-care professionals and professionals from organizations who provide training and education. Methods: Five focus groups were brought together in Belgium, with a total of 29 participants, including members of the three categories mentioned above. They were analysed using a constant comparison method. Results: The analysis revealed that undergraduate education and continuing medical education (CME) while in practice, is insufficient to prepare GPs for their palliative work. Workplace learning (WPL) through collaboration with specialized palliative home-care nurses seems to be a valuable alternative. Conclusions: The effectiveness of undergraduate education might be enhanced by adding practical experience. Providers of continuing medical education should look to organize interactive, practice-based and interprofessional sessions. Therefore, teachers need to be trained to run small group discussions. In order to optimize workplace learning, health care professionals should be trained to monitor each other’s practice and to provide effective feedback. Further research is needed to clarify which aspects of interprofessional teamwork (e.g. professional hierarchy, agreements on tasks and responsibilities) influence the effectiveness of workplace learning

Study protocol of OncoTolk : an observational study on communication problems in language-mediated consultations with migrant oncology patients in Flanders (Belgium)

Introduction Effective doctor-patient communication in oncology settings can be challenging due to the complexity of the cancer disease trajectory. The challenges can become greater when doctors and patients do not share a common language and need to rely on language mediators. The aim of this study is to provide evidence-based recommendations for healthcare professionals, patients and language mediators on how to interact with each other during language-mediated consultations in oncology settings. Methods and analysis A systematic review of the literature on communication problems in monolingual and multilingual oncology settings will be conducted. Thirty language-mediated consultations with Turkish-speaking or Arabic-speaking cancer patients, language mediators and Dutch-speaking oncologists/haematologists will be video-recorded in three urban hospitals in Flanders, Belgium. All participants will be interviewed immediately after the consultation and 2 weeks after it by means of video-stimulated recall. Multimodal interaction analysis will be combined with qualitative content analysis to allow for the identification of communication practices when communication problems occur. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the following ethics committees: Ghent University Hospital, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp Hospitals Network (ZNA). Results will be published via (inter)national peer-reviewed journals and the findings of the study will be communicated using a comprehensive dissemination strategy aimed at healthcare professionals, patients and language mediators

Healthcare payment reforms across western countries on three continents: Lessons from stakeholder preferences when asked to rate the supportiveness for fulfilling patients’ needs

International audienceTo test the hypothesis that care typology-being complex and highly unpredictable versus being clear-cut and highly predictable-guides healthcare payment preferences of physicians, policy makers, healthcare executives, and researchers. We collected survey data from 942 stakeholders across Canada, Europe, Oceania, and the United States. A total of 48 international societies invited their members to participate in our study. Study design Cross-sectional analysis of stakeholder survey data linked to four scenarios of care typology: primary prevention, trial-and-error care, standard care and network care. Principal findings We identified two “extremes”: (1) dominant preferences of physicians, who embraced fee for service (FFS), even when this precludes the advantages of other payment systems associated with a minimal risk of harm (OR 1.85 for primary prevention; OR 1.89 for standard care, compared to non-physicians); and (2) the dominant preferences of healthcare executives and researchers, who supported quality bonus or adjustment (OR 1.92) and capitation (OR 2.05), respectively, even when these could cause harm. Conclusions Based on exploratory findings, we can cautiously state that payment reform will prove to be difficult as long as physicians, healthcare executives, and researchers misalign payment systems with the nature of care. Replication studies are needed to (dis)confirm our findings within representative subsamples per area and stakeholder grou

Palliative care in primary care: European Forum for Primary Care position paper

Aim: The aim of this position paper is to assist primary health care (PHC) providers, policymakers, and researchers by discussing the current context in which palliative health care functions within PHC in Europe. The position paper gives examples for improvements to palliative care models from studies and international discussions at European Forum for Primary Care (EFPC) workshops and conferences. Background: Palliative care is a holistic approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing problems associated with terminal illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and diligent assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, whether physical, psychosocial, or spiritual. Unfortunately, some Europeans, unless they have cancer, still do not have access to generalist or specialist palliative care. Methods: A draft of this position paper was distributed electronically through the EFPC network in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Active collaboration with the representatives of the International Primary Palliative Care Network was established from the very beginning and more recently with the EAPC Primary Care Reference Group. Barriers, opportunities, and examples of good and bad practices were discussed at workshops focusing on palliative care at the international conferences of Southeastern European countries in Ljubljana (2015) and Budva (2017), at regular conferences in Amsterdam (2015) and Riga (2016), at the WONCA Europe conferences in Istanbul (2015), Copenhagen (2016), and Prague (2017), and at the EAPC conference in Madrid (2017). Findings: There is great diversity in the extent and type of palliative care provided in primary care by European countries. Primary care teams (PCTs) are well placed to encourage timely palliative care. We collected examples from different countries. We found numerous barriers influencing PCTs in preparing care plans with patients. We identified many facilitators to improve the organization of palliative care.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Engaging GPs in insulin therapy initiation : a qualitative study evaluating a support program in the Belgian context

Background: A program supporting the initiation of insulin therapy in primary care was introduced in Belgium, as part of a larger quality improvement project on diabetes care. This paper reports on a study exploring factors influencing the engagement of general practitioners (GPs) in insulin therapy initiation (research question 1) and exploring factors relevant for future program development (research question 2). Methods: We have used semi-structured interviews to answer the first research question: two focus group interviews with GPs who had at least one patient in the insulin initiation program and 20 one-to-one interviews with GPs who were not regular users of the overall support program in the region. To explore factors relevant for future program development, the data from the GPs were triangulated with data obtained from individual interviews with patients (n=10), the diabetes nurse educator (DNE) and the specialist involved in the program, and data extracted from meeting reports evaluating the insulin initiation support program. Results: We found differences between GPs engaged and those not engaged in insulin initiation in attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control regarding insulin initiation. In general the support program was evaluated in a positive way by users of the program. Some aspects need further consideration: job boundaries between the DNE and GPs, job boundaries between GPs and specialists, protocol adherence and limited case load. Conclusion: The study shows that the transition of insulin initiation from secondary care to the primary care setting is a challenge. Although a support program addressing known barriers to insulin initiation was provided, a substantial number of GPs were reluctant to engage in this aspect of care. Important issues for future program development are: an interdisciplinary approach to job clarification, a dynamic approach to the integration of expertise in primary care and feedback on protocol adherence. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT0082449

What, how and from whom do health care professionals learn during collaboration in palliative home care : a cross-sectional study in primary palliative care

Background: Palliative care often requires inter-professional collaboration, offering opportunities to learn from each other. General practitioners often collaborate with specialized palliative home care teams. This study seeks to identify what, how and from whom health care professionals learn during this collaboration. Methods: Cross-sectional survey in Belgium. All palliative home care teams were invited to participate. General practitioners (n = 267) and palliative care nurses (n = 73) filled in questionnaires. Results: General practitioners (GPs) and palliative care nurses learned on all palliative care aspects. Different learning activities were used. Participants learned from all others involved in patient care. The professionals’ discipline influences the content, the way of learning and who learns from whom. Multiple linear regression shows significant but limited association of gender with amount of learning by GPs (M  F; p = 0.019; Adj R2 = 0.01). Conclusions: This study is the first to reveal what, how and from whom learning occurs during collaboration in palliative care. Training professionals in sharing expertise during practice and in detecting and adequately responding to others’ learning needs, could optimize this way of learning

An online international comparison of palliative care identification in primary care using the Surprise Question.

BACKGROUND The Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent. AIM To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. DESIGN A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]-100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes. RESULTS Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries (p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries (p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted