Multi-dimensional approach to end-of-life care: The Welfare Model.

Appropriate and balanced decision-making is sentinel to goal setting and the provision of appropriate clinical care that are attuned to preserving the best interests of the patient. Current family-led decision-making in family-centric societies such as those in Singapore and other countries in East Asia are believed to compromise these objectives in favor of protecting familial interests. Redressing these skewed clinical practices employing autonomy-based patient-centric approaches however have been found wanting in their failure to contend with wider sociocultural considerations that impact care determinations. Evaluation of a number of alternative decision-making frameworks set out to address the shortcomings of prevailing atomistic and family-centric decision-making models within the confines of end-of-life care prove these alternative frameworks to be little better at protecting the best interests of vulnerable patients. As a result, we propose the Welfare Model that we believe is attentive to the relevant socio-culturally significant considerations of a particular case and better meets the needs of end-of-life care goals of preserving the welfare of patients. Employing a multi-professional team evaluation guided by regnant psychosocial, legal, and clinical standards and the prevailing practical and clinical realities of the particular patient's setting the Welfare Model provides a clinically relevant, culturally sensitive, transparent, and evidence-based approach to care determinations.

Cultural influences upon advance care planning in a family-centric society.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced care plans (ACPs) are designed to convey the wishes of patients with regards to their care in the event of incapacity. There are a number of prerequisites for creation of an effective ACP. First, the patient must be aware of their condition, their prognosis, the likely trajectory of the illness, and the potential treatment options available to them. Second, patient input into ACP must be free of any coercive factors. Third, the patient must be able to remain involved in adapting their ACP as their condition evolves. Continued use of familial determination and collusion within the local healthcare system, however, has raised concerns that the basic requirements for effective ACP cannot be met. METHOD: To assess the credibility of these concerns, we employed a video vignette approach depicting a family of three adult children discussing whether or not to reveal a cancer diagnosis to their mother. Semistructured interviews with 72 oncology patients and 60 of their caregivers were conducted afterwards to explore the views of the participants on the different positions taken by the children. RESULTS: Collusion, family-centric decision making, adulteration of information provided to patients, and circumnavigation of patient involvement appear to be context-dependent. Patients and families alike believe that patients should be told of their conditions. However, the incidence of collusion and familial determination increases with determinations of a poor prognosis, a poor anticipated response to chemotherapy, and a poor premorbid health status. Financial considerations with respect to care determinations remain secondary considerations. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our data suggest that ACPs can be effectively constructed in family-centric societies so long as healthcare professionals continue to update and educate families on the patient's situation. Collusion and familial intervention in the decision-making process are part of efforts to protect the patient from distress and are neither solely dependent on cultural nor an "all-or-nothing" phenomenon. The response of families are context-dependent and patient-specific, weighing the patient's right to know and prepare and the potential distress it is likely to cause. In most cases, the news is broken gently over time to allow the patient to digest the information and for the family to assess how well they cope with the news. Furthermore, the actions of families are dependent upon their understanding of the situation, highlighting the need for continued engagement with healthcare professionals.

Use of Opioids and Sedatives at End-of-Life.

Despite their proven efficacy and safety, opioid and sedative use for palliation in patients afflicted with cancer in Singapore have been shown to be a fraction of that in other countries. This paper explores the various psychosocial and system-related factors that appear to propagate this conservative approach to care in what is largely a western-influenced care practice. A search for publications relating to sedative and opioid usage in Asia was performed on PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, World Health Organization, and Singapore's government agency websites using search terms such as "opioids," "sedatives," "palliation," "end-of-life-care," "pain management," "palliative care," "cancer pain," "Asia," "Singapore," and "morphine." Findings were classified into three broad groups - system-related, physician-related, and patient-related factors. A cautious medico-legal climate, shortage of physicians trained in palliative care, and lack of instruments for symptom assessment of patients at the end of life contribute to system-related barriers. Physician-related barriers include delayed access to palliative care due to late referrals, knowledge deficits in non-palliative medicine physicians, and sub-optimal care provided by palliative physicians. Patients' under-reporting of symptoms and fear of addiction, tolerance, and side effects of opioids and sedatives may lead to conservative opioid use in palliative care as well. System-related, physician-related, and patient-related factors play crucial roles in steering the management of palliative patients. Addressing and increasing the awareness of these factors may help ensure patients receive adequate relief and control of distressing symptoms.

Distancing sedation in end-of-life care from physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Lipuma equates continuous sedation until death (CSD) to physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) based on the premise that iatrogenic unconsciousness negates social function and, thus, personhood, leaving a patient effectively 'dead'. Others have extrapolated upon this position further, to suggest that any use of sedation and/or opioids at the end of life would be analogous to CSD and thus tantamount to PAS/E. These posits sit diametrically opposite to standard end-of-life care practices. This paper will refute Lipuma's position and the posits borne from it. We first show that prevailing end-of-life care guidelines require proportional and monitored use of sedatives and/or opioids to attenuate fears that the use of such treatment could hasten death. These guidelines also classify CSD as a last resort treatment, employed only when symptoms prove intractable, and not amenable to all standard treatment options. Furthermore, CSD is applied only when deemed appropriate by a multidisciplinary palliative medicine team. We also show that empirical data based on local views of personhood will discount concerns that iatrogenic unconsciousness is tantamount to a loss of personhood and death.

The use of facemasks to prevent respiratory infection: a literature review in the context of the Health Belief Model.

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory infections are prevalent and pose a constant threat to society. While the use of facemasks has proven to be an effective barrier to curb the aerosol spread of such diseases, its use in the local community is uncommon, resulting in doubts being cast on its effectiveness in preventing airborne infections during epidemics. We thus aimed to conduct a literature review to determine the factors that influence the use of facemasks as a primary preventive health measure in the community. METHODS: A search for publications relating to facemask usage was performed on Medline, PubMed, Google, World Health Organization and Singapore government agencies' websites, using search terms such as 'facemask', 'mask', 'influenza', 'respiratory infection', 'personal protective equipment', 'disease prevention', 'compliance' and 'adherence'. Findings were framed under five components of the Health Belief Model: perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, perceived severity, perceived barriers and cues to action. RESULTS: We found that individuals are more likely to wear facemasks due to the perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of being afflicted with life-threatening diseases. Although perceived susceptibility appeared to be the most significant factor determining compliance, perceived benefits of mask-wearing was found to have significant effects on mask-wearing compliance as well. Perceived barriers include experience or perception of personal discomfort and sense of embarrassment. Media blitz and public health promotion activities supported by government agencies provide cues to increase the public's usage of facemasks. CONCLUSION: Complex interventions that use multipronged approaches targeting the five components of the Health Belief Model, especially perceived susceptibility, are needed to increase the use of facemasks in the community. Further studies are required to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented interventions.