Unraveling patients' readiness in advance care planning conversations: a qualitative study as part of the ACTION Study.

PURPOSE: Patients' readiness for advance care planning (ACP) is often considered a prerequisite for starting ACP conversations. Healthcare professionals' uncertainty about patients' readiness hampers the uptake of ACP in clinical practice. This study aims To determine how patients' readiness is expressed and develops throughout an ACP conversation. METHODS: A qualitative sub-study into the ACTION ACP conversations collected as part of the international Phase III multicenter cluster-randomized clinical trial. A purposeful sample was taken of ACP conversations of patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer who participated in the ACTION study between May 2015 and December 2018 (n = 15). A content analysis of the ACP conversations was conducted. RESULTS: All patients (n = 15) expressed both signs of not being ready and of being ready. Signs of being ready included anticipating possible future scenarios or demonstrating an understanding of one's disease. Signs of not being ready included limiting one's perspective to the here and now or indicating a preference not to talk about an ACP topic. Signs of not being ready occurred more often when future-oriented topics were discussed. Despite showing signs of not being ready, patients were able to continue the conversation when a new topic was introduced. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals should be aware that patients do not have to be ready for all ACP topics to be able to participate in an ACP conversation. They should be sensitive to signs of not being ready and develop the ability to adapt the conversation accordingly.

Content analysis of Advance Directives completed by patients with advanced cancer as part of an Advance Care Planning intervention: insights gained from the ACTION trial.

PURPOSE: Writing an Advance Directive (AD) is often seen as a part of Advance Care Planning (ACP). ADs may include specific preferences regarding future care and treatment and information that provides a context for healthcare professionals and relatives in case they have to make decisions for the patient. The aim of this study was to get insight into the content of ADs as completed by patients with advanced cancer who participated in ACP conversations. METHODS: A mixed methods study involving content analysis and descriptive statistics was used to describe the content of completed My Preferences forms, an AD used in the intervention arm of the ACTION trial, testing the effectiveness of the ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention. RESULTS: In total, 33% of 442 patients who received the ACTION RC ACP intervention completed a My Preferences form. Document completion varied per country: 10.4% (United Kingdom), 20.6% (Denmark), 29.2% (Belgium), 41.7% (the Netherlands), 61.3% (Italy) and 63.9% (Slovenia). Content analysis showed that 'maintaining normal life' and 'experiencing meaningful relationships' were important for patients to live well. Fears and worries mainly concerned disease progression, pain or becoming dependent. Patients hoped for prolongation of life and to be looked after by healthcare professionals. Most patients preferred to be resuscitated and 44% of the patients expressed maximizing comfort as their goal of future care. Most patients preferred 'home' as final place of care. CONCLUSIONS: My Preferences forms provide some insights into patients' perspectives and preferences. However, understanding the reasoning behind preferences requires conversations with patients.

Trained facilitators' experiences with structured advance care planning conversations in oncology: an international focus group study within the ACTION trial.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, Health Care Professionals often experience conducting Advance Care Planning (ACP) conversations as difficult and are hesitant to start them. A structured approach could help to overcome this. In the ACTION trial, a Phase III multi-center cluster-randomized clinical trial in six European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, United Kingdom), patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer are invited to have one or two structured ACP conversations with a trained facilitator. It is unclear how trained facilitators experience conducting structured ACP conversations. This study aims to understand how facilitators experience delivering the ACTION Respecting Choices (RC) ACP conversation. METHODS: A qualitative study involving focus groups with RC facilitators. Focus group interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized, translated into English, and thematically analysed, supported by NVivo 11. The international research team was involved in data analysis from initial coding and discussion towards final themes. RESULTS: Seven focus groups were conducted, involving 28 of in total 39 trained facilitators, with different professional backgrounds from all participating countries. Alongside some cultural differences, six themes were identified. These reflect that most facilitators welcomed the opportunity to participate in the ACTION trial, seeing it as a means of learning new skills in an important area. The RC script was seen as supportive to ask questions, including those perceived as difficult to ask, but was also experienced as a barrier to a spontaneous conversation. Facilitators noticed that most patients were positive about their ACTION RC ACP conversation, which had prompted them to become aware of their wishes and to share these with others. The facilitators observed that it took patients substantial effort to have these conversations. In response, facilitators took responsibility for enabling patients to experience a conversation from which they could benefit. Facilitators emphasized the need for training, support and advanced communication skills to be able to work with the script. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitators experienced benefits and challenges in conducting scripted ACP conversations. They mentioned the importance of being skilled and experienced in carrying out ACP conversations in order to be able to explore the patients' preferences while staying attuned to patients' needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry 63110516 ( ISRCTN63110516 ) per 10/3/2014.

Advance care planning: A systematic review about experiences of patients with a life-threatening or life-limiting illness.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is seen as an important strategy to improve end-of-life communication and the quality of life of patients and their relatives. However, the frequency of advance care planning conversations in practice remains low. In-depth understanding of patients' experiences with advance care planning might provide clues to optimise its value to patients and improve implementation. AIM: To synthesise and describe the research findings on the experiences with advance care planning of patients with a life-threatening or life-limiting illness. DESIGN: A systematic literature review, using an iterative search strategy. A thematic synthesis was conducted and was supported by NVivo 11. DATA SOURCES: The search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL on 7 November 2016. RESULTS: Of the 3555 articles found, 20 were included. We identified three themes in patients' experiences with advance care planning. 'Ambivalence' refers to patients simultaneously experiencing benefits from advance care planning as well as unpleasant feelings. 'Readiness' for advance care planning is a necessary prerequisite for taking up its benefits but can also be promoted by the process of advance care planning itself. 'Openness' refers to patients' need to feel comfortable in being open about their preferences for future care towards relevant others. CONCLUSION: Although participation in advance care planning can be accompanied by unpleasant feelings, many patients reported benefits of advance care planning as well. This suggests a need for advance care planning to be personalised in a form which is both feasible and relevant at moments suitable for the individual patient.

Unravelling adherence to prophylaxis in haemophilia: a patients' perspective.

Given the lifelong therapy in haemophilia patients, insight in non-adherence behaviour from a patient perspective is important to understand patients' difficulties with the following treatment recommendations. The aim of this study was to clarify the process underlying adherence (behaviour) to prophylactic treatment, from a patients' perspective. To develop a grounded theory, a qualitative study using individual in-depth interviews was performed to understand experiences, perceptions and beliefs concerning adherence to prophylaxis. From two Dutch treatment centres, 21 adults with haemophilia using prophylaxis were interviewed. Patients were asked how they experience their task to administer prophylaxis and how they adhere to this. The interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed in an iterative process, leading to the development of the grounded theory. Adherence was determined by the position of prophylaxis in life. The position of prophylaxis was determined by the perception of prophylaxis and the ability to exert prophylaxis. Patients' perception was influenced by two main factors: acceptance of haemophilia and feeling/fearing symptoms. The ability to exert prophylaxis was influenced by understanding haemophilia and prophylaxis and planning/infusion skills. The combination of different perceptions and skills led to four main positions of prophylaxis in life: (i) prophylaxis integrated in life, (ii) prophylaxis according to doctors' advice, struggling with irregular situations, (iii) prophylaxis is too much to handle, (iv) prophylaxis is a confrontation with illness. The adherence level gradually decreased from position 1 to 4. This information can be used to design tailored interventions to promote adherence.

Shared decision-making in pediatric palliative care in the Netherlands.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which health care professionals (HCPs) involve parents and children - when appropriate- to decide together on future treatment. These decisions are based on values that are important for the family, goals of care and preferences for future care and treatment. Elucidation of these values and preferences is preferably done early in the disease trajectory via so-called Advance Care Planning (ACP) conversations. In the Netherlands, ACP and SDM are being adopted by most health care professionals. This has happened only recently. Ten years ago, ACP and SDM were unknown concepts for the vast majority of Dutch HCPs. Today, interest in these conversational approaches is booming in both daily practice and in research. This rise has been reinforced by two recent major advancements in Dutch pediatric palliative care: the Individual Care Plan (ICP) and the Dutch Evidence-Based Guideline on Pediatric Palliative Care (DGPPC). Despite this positive evolution, a lot of work is still ahead. ACP and SDM demand a change in mindset from the traditional paternalistic approach by which the HCP 'knows what is best for this child' to a more humble and open approach in which (non-medical) factors that are important to the child and family and may influence the final treatment decision. Such changes in mindset don't happen overnight. In this article we describe the situation of pediatric palliative care in the Netherlands, with focus on the recent evolution of ACP and SDM.

The Perspectives of Adolescents and Young Adults on Adherence to Prophylaxis in Hemophilia: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with severe hemophilia use prophylaxis that requires a high level of adherence. The present study aimed to explore the underlying reason for adherence and non-adherence to prophylaxis in hemophilia from the perspective of AYAs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A qualitative study in Dutch AYAs with hemophilia (14-25 years) using prophylaxis was executed. Focus group interviews and individual interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed using an iterative process. Member checking in three respondents was used to validate the potential model. RESULTS: A total of 21 interviews were performed. Parental support decreased when AYAs gained more treatment responsibilities, which resulted in a higher risk for non-adherence. AYAs were weighing their potential bleeding risk per activity based on the wish to do what they prefer while also wanting to simultaneously feel safe. When bleeding with low impact on their daily life occurred, or when bleeding remained absent, AYAs felt safe and the perceived need for prophylaxis decreased. CONCLUSION: The level of treatment responsibility per AYA and estimated risks per activity were the two main underlying reasons for (non-)adherence. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: We suggest using a conversation technique to discuss adherence, especially during bleeding assessment visits.