Timely identification of palliative patients and anticipatory care planning by GPs: Practical application of tools and a training programme

Background: Palliative care is mainly restricted to terminal care. General practitioners (GPs) are not trained to early identify palliative patients with cancer, COPD or heart failure. With the help of the RADboud indicators for PAlliative Care needs (RADPAC), we trained GPs to identify patients’ needs and to make a proactive care plan. They were also able to join two role-plays where they discussed the patient’s future, and consulted a palliative care consultant to fine-tune the care plan. We evaluated the programme with the GPs and consultants and noted its impact on their daily practice. Methods: Two years after they had participated in the programme, we held semi-structured interviews with the GPs and a focus group interview with the consultants and performed a thematic content analysis. Results: Six consultants and nine GPs participated in the programme. Most GPs and consultants mentioned positive changes in the thinking or acting of GPs regarding early palliative care. A number continued to use the tool to identify patients; most of the others noted they had internalised the indicators. Although half of them still considered discussing end-of-life aspects difficult, part icularly in patients with organ failure, the others were more easily able to discuss the future with their palliative patients. Conclusion: Although most GPs and consultants were positive about the training programme and applying it in daily practice, we conclude that in future programmes, more attention needs to paid to timely identification of palliative patients with COPD or CHF and how to discuss the future with them

Side effects of analgesia may significantly reduce quality of life in symptomatic multiple myeloma: a cross-sectional prevalence study

Background Pain is a common symptom in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Many patients are dependent on analgesics and in particular opioids, but there is limited information on the impact of these drugs and their side effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Method In a cross-sectional study, semi-structured interviews were performed in 21 patients attending the hospital with symptomatic MM on pain medications. HRQoL was measured using items 29 and 30 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30. Results Patients were able to recall a median of two (range 0–4) analgesics. They spontaneously identified a median of two (range 1–5) side effects attributable to their analgesic medications. Patients’ assessment of HRQoL based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questions 29/30 was mean 48.3 (95 % CI; 38.7–57.9) out of 100. Patients’ assessment of their HRQoL in the hypothetical situation, in which they would not experience any side effects from analgesics, was significantly higher: 62.6 (53.5–71.7) (t test, p=0.001). Conclusion This study provides, for the first time, evidence that side effects of analgesics are common in symptomatic MM and may result in a statistically and clinically significant reduction of self-reported HRQoL

Training general practitioners contributes to the identification of palliative patients and to multidimensional care provision: secondary outcomes of an RCT

Introduction To support general practitioners (GPs) in providing early palliative care to patients with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure, the RADboud university medical centre indicators for PAlliative Care needs tool (RADPAC) and a training programme were developed to identify such patients and to facilitate anticipatory palliative care planning. We studied whether GPs, after 1 year of training, identified more palliative patients, and provided multidimensional and multidisciplinary care more often than untrained GPs. Methods We performed a survey 1 year after GPs in the intervention group of an RCT were trained. With the help of a questionnaire, all 134 GPs were asked how many palliative patients they had identified, and whether anticipatory care was provided. We studied number of identified palliative patients, expected lifetime, contact frequency, whether multidimensional care was provided and which other disciplines were involved. Results Trained GPs identified more palliative patients than did untrained GPs (median 3 vs 2; p 0.046) and more often provided multidimensional palliative care (p 0.024). In both groups, most identified patients had cancer. Conclusions RADPAC sensitises GPs in the identification of palliative patients. Trained GPs more often provided multidimensional palliative care. Further adaptation and evaluation of the tools and training are necessary to improve early palliative care for patients with organ failure. Trial registration number NTR2815; post resultsThe study was financially supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development—ZonMw Foundation. Grant number 1150.0002

Early identification of palliative care patients in general practice: Development of RADboud indicators for PAlliative Care Needs (RADPAC)

Background: According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, palliative care should be initiated in an early phase and not be restricted to terminal care. In the literature, no validated tools predicting the optimal timing for initiating palliative care have been determined. Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically develop a tool for GPs with which they can identify patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cancer respectively, who could benefit from proactive palliative care. Design: A three-step procedure, including a literature review, focus group interviews with input from the multidisciplinary field of palliative healthcare professionals, and a modified Rand Delphi process with GPs. Method: The three-step procedure was used to develop sets of indicators for the early identification of CHF, COPD, and cancer patients who could benefit from palliative care. Results: Three comprehensive sets of indicators were developed to support GPs in identifying patients with CHF, COPD, and cancer in need of palliative care. For CHF, seven indicators were found: for example, frequent hospital admissions. For COPD, six indicators were found: such as, Karnofsky score ≤50%. For cancer, eight indicators were found: for example, worse prognosis of the primary tumour. Conclusion: The RADboud indicators for PAlliative Care Needs (RADPAC) is the first tool developed from a combination of scientific evidence and practice experience that can help GPs in the identification of patients with CHF, COPD, or cancer, in need of palliative care. Applying the RADPAC facilitates the start of proactive palliative care and aims to improve the quality of palliative care in general practice

Training general practitioners in early identification and anticipatory palliative care planning: A randomized controlled trial Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management

Background: Most patients with advanced cancer, debilitating COPD or chronic heart failure (CHF) live at home. General practitioners (GPs) asked for guidance in how to recognize patients in need of palliative care in a timely way and to structure anticipatory care. For that reason, we developed a training for GPs in identifying patients in need of palliative care and in structuring anticipatory palliative care planning and studied its effect on out-of-hours contacts, contacts with their own GP, hospitalizations and place of death. Methods: We performed a cluster randomised controlled trial. GPs in the intervention group were trained in identifying patients in need of palliative care and anticipatory care planning. Next, for each identified patient, they were offered a coaching session with a specialist in palliative care to fine-tune a structured care plan. The GPs in the control group did not receive training or coaching, and were asked to provide care as usual. After one year, characteristics of patients deceased of cancer, COPD or CHF in both study groups were compared with mixed effects models for out-of-hours contacts (primary outcome), contacts with their own GP, place of death and hospitalizations in the last months of their life (secondary outcomes). As a post-hoc analysis, of identified patients (of the intervention GPs) these figures were compared to all other deceased patients, who had not been identified as in need of palliative care. Results: We did not find any differences between the intervention and control group. Yet, only half of the trained GPs (28) identified patients (52), which was only 24 % of the deceased patients. Those identified patients had significantly more contacts with their own GP (B 4.5218; p <0.0006), were less often hospitalized (OR 0.485; p 0.0437) more often died at home (OR 2.126; p 0.0572) and less often died in the hospital (OR 0.380; p 0.0449). Conclusions: Although we did not find differences between the intervention and control group, we found in a post-hoc analysis that those patients that had been identified as in need of palliative care had more contacts with their GP, less hospitalizations, and more often died at home. We recommend future controlled studies that try to further increase identification of patients eligible for anticipatory palliative care. The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR2815 date 07-04-2010

Obstacles to the delivery of primary palliative care as perceived by GPs.

Contains fulltext : 52154.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)INTRODUCTION: In order to facilitate GPs in their work and increase the possibilities for patients to remain at home, it is important to identify the obstacles which hinder the delivery of primary palliative care. From previous research we learned about some of the problems experienced by GPs. In this survey we aimed to identify the prevalence of such problems in providing palliative care and its determinants. METHODS: The prevalence of obstacles and its determinants were identified by a questionnaire to 320 GPs in three regions of the Netherlands. Obstacles were grouped as follows: communication, organisation & co-ordination of care, knowledge & expertise, integrated care, time for relatives. The potential determinants were GP characteristics and expertise development activities. RESULTS: The response rate was 62.3%. GPs experienced considerable obstacles in all aspects of palliative care. The most prevalent were: problems with bureaucratic procedures (83.9%), the time necessary to arrange home care technology (61.1%) and the difficulties accompanied with the wish or necessity to obtain extra care (56.3%). In general, more years of GP experience and the participation in (multidisciplinary) case discussions were associated with less perceived obstacles. DISCUSSION: Based on the results of our survey policymakers and practitioners can plan and set priorities in handling the obstacles. There is a high necessity of firstly overcoming the barriers within organisation and coordination of care. Furthermore, our study can help in choosing the (additional) expertise needed in the future and in the realisation of the preferred expertise advancement activities. Palliative Medicine 2007; 21: 697-703