Utility of the Repeat and Point Test for Subtyping Patients With Primary Progressive Aphasia.

BACKGROUND: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) may present with three distinct clinical sybtypes: semantic variant PPA (svPPA), nonfluent/agrammatic variant PPA (nfvPPA), and logopenic variant PPA (lvPPA). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to examine the utility of the German version of the Repeat and Point (R&P) Test for subtyping patients with PPA. METHOD: During the R&P Test, the examiner reads out aloud a noun and the participants are asked to repeat the word and subsequently point to the corresponding picture. Data from 204 patients (68 svPPA, 85 nfvPPA, and 51 lvPPA) and 33 healthy controls were analyzed. RESULTS: Controls completed both tasks with >90% accuracy. Patients with svPPA had high scores in repetition (mean=9.2±1.32) but low scores in pointing (mean=6±2.52). In contrast, patients with nfvPPA and lvPPA performed comparably in both tasks with lower scores in repetition (mean=7.4±2.7 for nfvPPA and 8.2±2.34 for lvPPA) but higher scores in pointing (mean=8.9±1.41 for nfvPPA and 8.6±1.62 for lvPPA). The R&P Test had high accuracy discriminating svPPA from nfvPPA (83% accuracy) and lvPPA (79% accuracy). However, there was low accuracy discriminating nfvPPA from lvPPA (<60%). CONCLUSION: The R&P Test helps to differentiate svPPA from 2 nonsemantic variants (nfvPPA and lvPPA). However, additional tests are required for the differentiation of nfvPPA and lvPPA.

Identifying key elements for paediatric advance care planning with parents, healthcare providers and stakeholders: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although international guidelines recommend discussions about goals of care and treatment options for children with severe and life-limiting conditions, there are still few structured models of paediatric advance care planning. AIM: The study aimed at identifying key components of paediatric advance care planning through direct discussions with all involved parties. DESIGN: The study had a qualitative design with a participatory approach. Participants constituted an advisory board and took part in two transdisciplinary workshops. Data were collected in discussion and dialogue groups and analysed using content analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We included bereaved parents, health care providers and stakeholders of care networks. RESULTS: Key elements were discussions, documentation, implementation, timing and participation of children and adolescents. Parents engage in discussions with facilitators and persons of trust to reach a decision. Documentation constitutes the focus of professionals, who endorse brief recommendations for procedures in case of emergencies, supplemented by larger advance directives. Implementation hindrances include emotional barriers of stakeholders, disagreements between parents and professionals and difficulties with emergency services. Discussion timing should take into account parental readiness. The intervention should be repeated at regular intervals, considering emerging needs and increasing awareness of families over time. Involving children and adolescents in advance care planning remains a challenge. CONCLUSION: A paediatric advance care planning intervention should take into account potential pitfalls and barriers including issues related to timing, potential conflicts between parents and professionals, ambiguity towards written advance directives, the role of non-medical carers for paediatric advance care planning implementation, the need to involve the child and the necessity of an iterative process.

How to Open the Door: A Qualitative, Observational Study on Initiating Advance Care Discussions with Parents in Pediatric Palliative Care.

Context: Advance care discussions (ACD) between health care professionals (HCPs) and parents of children with a life-limiting disease are a core element of successful pediatric advance care planning (pACP). Yet, they are perceived as a challenging situation for all participants. Objectives: Our goal was to investigate the first step of ACD and identify its challenges and helpful communication strategies to develop a conversation guide for initiating the pACP process and structure the conversational opening. Methods: We performed a participant observation of 11 initial ACD and 24 interviews with 13 HCPs and 20 parents of 11 children cared for by 3 different palliative care teams in southern Germany. Qualitative data collection was supplemented by a questionnaire. Content analysis and conversation analysis were used for evaluation. Results: Parents and HCPs start the process with different expectations, which can lead to misunderstandings and confusion. HCPs gain parental cooperation when they express the purpose of the meeting clearly and early, provide structure and guidance, and give parents time to talk about their experiences and feelings. Addressing dying and death is hard for both sides and requires a sensitive approach. Conclusions: Initiating ACD is extremely challenging for all participants. HCPs and parents should clarify expectations and aims at the beginning of the conversation. Future research should focus on how HCPs can be trained for this task and how the right timing for introducing ACD to families can be identified. Clinical Trial Registration number 049-12.

Participatory Development of a Modular Advance Care Planning Program in Pediatric Palliative Care (MAPPS).

CONTEXT: Decision-making in pediatric palliative care concerns mainly children without decision-making capacity. It has to balance the child's best interests, parental responsibility and the impact on the family system. OBJECTIVES: Advance care planning (ACP) supports decision making about future medical care. A consistent pediatric approach is still missing. This study aimed at developing a pediatric ACP program (pedACP) meeting specific needs of children, parents and professionals. METHODS: Bereaved parents of children with life-limiting conditions and professionals involved in pedACP participated. Employing the technique of constellation analysis, they collaboratively assigned content, actors, tools and warning notes about pedACP along a timeline. The researchers analyzed, systematized and translated these results into a pedACP program draft, which was revised by the participants. RESULTS: The participants' overall focus was on the children's quality of life and an individualized interdisciplinary communication process along the disease trajectory. The program was conceptualized in modular design with fixed modules at the beginning (to build a trustful relationship and frame the process) and at the end (to summarize results and prepare implementation). The main discussions are structured in flexible modules (About the child, Emergencies, Disease-specific scenarios and End of life care). General themes cover timing, communication, engaging children and structural issues. The participants appreciated the program's comprehensiveness and flexibility. CONCLUSION: Parents and professionals combined their perspectives on reflecting goals of care and the complexity of pedACP. They perceived the resulting modular program as suitable for meeting the individual needs of patients, families and professional stakeholders.