Transition of patients with recently diagnosed Dementia from inpatient to outpatient setting- a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: After being diagnosed with dementia, patients need a medical professional to empathetically address their fears and get initial questions answered. This scoping review therefore addresses how patients newly diagnosed with dementia are cared for in the general practitioner (GP) setting and how the communication between different healthcare professionals and the GP is handled. METHODS: The scoping review was conducted based on the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. After developing a search algorithm, literature searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, GeroLit and Cinahl using defined search criteria, such as a focus on qualitative study designs. After the removal of duplicates, title/abstract and full text screening was carried out. RESULTS: Final data extraction included 10 articles out of 12,633 records. Strategies regarding the post-acute care of newly diagnosed patients included providing clarity and comfort to the patients and giving support and information both pre- and post-diagnosis. Care efforts were focused on advanced care planning and deprescribing. Involving people with dementia and their caregivers in further care was seen as crucial to provide them with the support needed. GPs emphasised the importance of listening to concerns, as well as ensuring wishes are respected, and autonomy is maintained. All studies found communication between the GP setting and other healthcare professionals regarding post-acute care to be inadequate. Lack of information sharing, clinical notes and recommendations for the GP setting resulted in inefficient provision of support, as GPs feel limited in their ability to act. DISCUSSION: Sharing necessary information with the GP setting could promote patient-centred care for people living with dementia and facilitate appropriate and timely resource allocation and effective healthcare collaboration between the settings, for example, by defining clear care pathways and clarifying roles and expectations.

Impact of information and communication software on multiprofessional team collaboration in outpatient palliative care - a qualitative study on providers' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The communication processes between different stakeholders in outpatient palliative care face challenges when multiprofessional teams want to keep each other updated on patient information. Meanwhile, the software market offers different tools to connect these teams in real-time to improve communication. In the research project ADAPTIVE (Impact of Digital Technologies in Palliative Care), we investigated how information and communication technology affects collaboration and work in multiprofessional teams and what advantages and disadvantages the use of said software might entail. METHODS: We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews between August and November 2020 with general practitioners (n = 8), palliative care nurses (n = 17), and a pharmacist (n = 1). They were conducted in a hybrid format, meaning that both face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews were carried out. Subsequently, we analyzed the interviews following the qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. RESULTS: Information and communication software has the potential to enable faster communication and delegation of tasks and to simplify communication and task management between providers. Furthermore, it creates the opportunity to decrease unnecessary supervision of duties and responsibilities for physicians in multiprofessional teams. Therefore, it allows facilitating the collaboration between multiprofessional teams that work independently of each other but care for the same patients. All providers have the same knowledge about their patients without time-consuming coordination such as phone calls or search processes in paper documentation. On the other hand, mishandling, poor Internet connection, and unfamiliarity with various features can diminish these benefits. CONCLUSION: Even though the use of such software offers many advantages, these advantages only reveal themselves if the software is used as it was intended by the developers. Misuse and unawareness of the individual functions can lead to the full potential not being realized. The software developers frequently offer specialized training, and the multiprofessional teams should utilize that to improve team communication, facilitate tasks, and allow physicians to delegate tasks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00021603 (Registration number: DRKS00021603; date of first registration: 02/07/2020).

"We need to talk!" Barriers to GPs' communication about the option of physician-assisted suicide and their ethical implications: results from a qualitative study.

GPs usually care for their patients for an extended period of time, therefore, requests to not only discontinue a patient's treatment but to assist a patient in a suicide are likely to create intensely stressful situations for physicians. However, in order to ensure the best patient care possible, the competent communication about the option of physician assisted suicide (PAS) as well as the assessment of the origin and sincerity of the request are very important. This is especially true, since patients' requests for PAS can also be an indicator for unmet needs or concerns. Twenty-three qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to in-depth explore this multifaceted, complex topic while enabling GPs to express possible difficulties when being asked for assistance. The analysis of the gathered data shows three main themes why GPs may find it difficult to professionally communicate about PAS: concerns for their own psychological well-being, conflicting personal values or their understanding of their professional role. In the discussion part of this paper we re-assess these different themes in order to ethically discuss and analyse how potential barriers to professional communication concerning PAS could be overcome.

What does physicians' clinical expertise contribute to oncologic decision-making? A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Physicians' clinical expertise forms an exclusive body of competences, which helps them to find the appropriate diagnostics and treatment for each individual patient. Empirical evidence, however, suggests that there is an inverse relationship between the number of years in practice and the quality of care provided by a physician. Knowledge and adherence to professional standards (such as clinical guidelines) are often used as indicators in previous research. METHODS: Semistructured interviews and the Q method were used for an explorative study on oncologists' views on the interplay between their own clinical expertise, intuition, and the external evidence incorporated in clinical guidelines. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed ad verbatim, and analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Data analysis shows the complex character of clinical expertise with respect to experience, professional development, and intuition. An irreplaceable role is attributed to personal and bodily experience during the providing of care for a patient. Professional experience becomes important, particularly in those situations that lie out of the focus of "guideline medicine." Intuition is regarded as having a strong emotional component and helps for deciding which therapeutic option the patient can deal with. CONCLUSIONS: Using measurable knowledge and adherence to standards as indicators does not account for the complexity of clinical expertise. Other factors, such as the importance of bodily experience and physicians' intuitive knowledge, must be considered, also with respect to the occurrence of treatment biases.

Interprofessional Silence at the End of Life: Do Swiss General Practitioners and Hospital Physicians Sufficiently Share Information About Their Patients?

BACKGROUND: Empirical research suggests that the quality of patient care at the end of life (EOL) is influenced by the effectiveness of the collaboration between the general practitioners (GPs) and hospital physicians (HPs). AIM: To identify possible difficulties and barriers to effective collaboration at the EOL between GPs and HPs from the perspective of Swiss GPs. DESIGN: Twenty-three qualitative semi-structured interviews with GPs were transcribed and analyzed using Mayring's content analysis. Interdisciplinary clinical-ethical analysis focused on the quality of GP and HP professional collaboration. RESULTS: GPs described the quality of collaboration with HPs as poor, in particular the lack of communication. There were two main issues to emerge. First, infrequent communication with HPs could negatively affect the care of the patient. Second, GPs were concerned with the lack of information about hospital care and involvement in medical decision making given their longstanding relationships with their patients. CONCLUSIONS: The research showed that Swiss GPs were concerned with the quality of their patients' EOL care and the current level of GP/HP collaboration. GPs appealed for greater involvement with EOL care decisions based on their relationship of care and knowledge of patient preferences. These findings require further critical evaluation to explore the potential advantages for patient care. Existing evidence suggests that there are measurable health benefits from successful GP/HP collaborations. A change in the way GPs maintain involvement with their patients during hospitalizations would be warranted if it resulted in a better use of resources, better patient experiences, and better health outcomes.

Advance directives and the impact of timing. A qualitative study with Swiss general practitioners.

PRINCIPLES: Advance directives are seen as an important tool for documenting the wishes of patients who are no longer competent to make decisions in regards to their medical care. Due to their nature, approaching the subject of advance directives with a patient can be difficult for both the medical care provider and the patient. This paper focuses on general practitioners' perspectives regarding the timing at which this discussion should take place, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the different moments. METHODS: In 2013, 23 semi-structured face-to-face interviews were performed with Swiss general practitioners. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: In our sample, 23 general practitioners provided different options that they felt were appropriate moments: either (a) when the patient is still healthy, (b) when illness becomes predominant, or (c) when a patient has been transferred to a long-term care facility. Furthermore, general practitioners reported uncertainty and discomfort regarding initiating the discussion. CONCLUSION: The distinct approaches, perspectives and rationales show that there is no well-defined or "right" moment. However, participants often associated advance directives with death. This link caused discomfort and uncertainty, which led to hesitation and delay on the part of general practitioners. Therefore we recommend further training on how to professionally initiate a conversation about advance directives. Furthermore, based on our results and experience, we recommend an early approach with healthy patients paired with later regular updates as it seems to be the most effective way to inform patients about their end-of-life care options.