How do hospital-based nurses and physicians identify the palliative phase in their patients and what difficulties exist? A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Early start of palliative care improves the quality of life of eligible patients and their relatives. However, in hospital, patients who could benefit from palliative care are often not identified timely. The aim of this study is to assess how hospital-based nurses and physicians define the palliative phase, how they identify the palliative phase and what difficulties they face. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with ten nurses and 18 physicians working at seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Nurses and physicians feel insecure about how to define the palliative phase and differentiate between an acute and extended phase. Great variation existed in what life expectancy is attributed to each phase. A variety of ways to identify the palliative phase were described: 1) Prognostication. 2) Treatment trade-off. 3) Assessment of patients' preferences and needs. 4) Interprofessional collaboration. Professionals base prognostication on their experience but also search for clinical indicators. When benefits of treatment no longer outweigh the negatives, this was considered an, albeit late, identification point. To start a conversation on a patients' palliative care needs was found to be difficult. Therefore, some respondents wait for patients to vocalize preferences themselves. Many professionals rely on interprofessional collaboration for identification, however uncertainty exist about responsibilities. Difficulties in identification occurred because of variance in definitions, unpredictability of non-oncological diseases, focus on treatment and difficulties in communication and collaboration. CONCLUSION: These results provide insight into the challenges and difficulties hospital-based professionals experience in timely identification of patients with palliative care needs.

Who should provide care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy? A qualitative study among Dutch general practitioners and oncologists.

INTRODUCTION: While close collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital specialists is considered important, the sharing of care responsibilities between GPs and oncologists during palliative chemotherapy has not been clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews using six hypothetical scenarios with purposively sampled GPs (n = 12) and oncologists (n = 10) in the Netherlands. Each represented an example of a clinical problem requiring different aspects of care: problems likely, or not, related to cancer or chemotherapy, need for decision support, and end-of-life care. RESULTS: GPs and oncologists agreed that GPs should provide end-of-life care and that they should be involved in decisions about palliative chemotherapy; however, for the other scenarios most participants considered themselves the most appropriate provider of care. Themes that emerged regarding who would provide the best care for the patients in the different scenarios were expertise, continuity of care, accessibility of care, doctor-patient relationship, and communication. Most participants mentioned improved communication between the GP and oncologist as being essential for a better coordination and quality of care. CONCLUSION: GPs and oncologists have different opinions about who should ideally provide different aspects of care during palliative chemotherapy. Findings raise awareness of the differences in reasoning and approaches and in current communication deficits between the two groups of health professionals. These findings could be used to improve coordination and collaboration and, ultimately, better patient care as results demonstrated that both disciplines can add value to the care for patients with advanced cancer. Key points This study identified contrasting opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Important themes that emerged were expertise, continuity of care, doctor-patient relations, accessibility of care, and communication. Although frequently using the same arguments, GPs and oncologists often considered themselves to be the most appropriate providers of palliative care.

Need for general practitioner involvement and eHealth in colon cancer survivorship care: patients' perspectives.

Background: As colon cancer is increasingly becoming a chronic illness with a broad range of symptoms, there is a need for individually tailored care for these patients. Objective: To investigate patients' opinions about GP involvement in survivorship care and the use of eHealth applications, such as Oncokompas2.0, to support self-management. Oncokompas2.0 is an interactive website that monitors quality of life via participant-reported outcomes and provides feedback and personalized supportive care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients diagnosed with stages I-III colon cancer treated with curative intent. Twenty participants (nine men, age range 49-86 years) were recruited in five Dutch hospitals by purposive sampling. Thematic data analysis was done by two coders. Results: Possible benefits of greater GP involvement include better accessibility of care and additional guidance. Participants considered an increased workload for the already busy GP as a disadvantage. Requirements for greater GP involvement were assurance of sufficient knowledge and expertise of the GP and easy access to secondary care. Most participants expected that Oncokompas2.0 would increase awareness of symptoms and concerns and provide more insight into support possibilities. Reservations mentioned were the expected loss of personal contact with health professionals and the feasibility of implementation in the total patient population. Conclusion: Colon cancer patients see some benefit of greater GP involvement and the use of Oncokompas2.0 to improve survivorship care. Our study results support initiatives to further explore GP-led survivorship care and the implementation of eHealth.

Improving care after colon cancer treatment in The Netherlands, personalised care to enhance quality of life (I CARE study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is expected that in 2020 more than 17,000 cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed in The Netherlands. To date, patients are included in a surgeon-led follow-up programme whose main focus is recurrence detection. However, patients often experience multiple physical and psychosocial problems. Currently, these problems are not always encountered. More care by a generalist is suggested as a solution. Furthermore, patients prefer to undergo rehabilitation in their own environment and to be more involved in their own health care. eHealth applications might enhance this. Oncokompas(2.0) is an online self-management application which facilitates access to supportive care. This study aims to evaluate primary care follow-up and aftercare in comparison with secondary care follow-up and aftercare for patients with colon cancer. Second, the added value of Oncokompas(2.0) to care will be assessed. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multi-centre 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial with a calculated sample size of 300 patients. Patients with stage I, II, or III colon carcinoma are eligible. Patients will be randomly assigned in four groups: (1) usual follow-up visits and aftercare provided in secondary care, (2) usual follow-up visits and aftercare provided in secondary care with additional use of Oncokompas(2.0), (3) follow-up and aftercare in primary care, and (4) follow-up and aftercare in primary care with additional use of Oncokompas(2.0). The primary outcome is quality of life. Secondary outcomes include physical outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, number of investigations, referrals and related communication between secondary and primary care, (time of) recurrence detection and protocol adherence, attention to preventive care, self-management of patients, patient satisfaction, and preference of care at the end of the trial. Data collection will be done by questionnaires and extractions from electronic medical records. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence, which has been scarce to date, on prominent general practitioner involvement in care for colon cancer patients after initial treatment. Also, it evaluates the efficacy of an eHealth application to enhance patient empowerment. DUTCH TRIAL REGISTER: NTR4860 (registered on 2 October 2014).

An individual, community-based treatment for obese children and their families: the solution-focused approach.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates an individual, community-based treatment for obese children and their families. In this program, a treatment team applied solution-focused techniques to develop a custom-made treatment plan in collaboration with the participants. The treatment plan consisted of community-based lifestyle activities. METHODS: 559 obese children with an average BMI z-score of 2.76 ± 0.54 took part in the 12-month study, and 372 children with an average BMI z-score of 2.75 ± 0.52 took part in the 24-month study. At the start of the study, ethnicity and special school needs were recorded. Before, after 12 months, and after 24 months of the treatment, body weight and height were measured. The effect of the treatment on body weight was evaluated using BMI z-scores. RESULTS: 291 children (52%) completed 12 months of treatment, whereas 22 children (4%) were dismissed earlier due to a good response. After 12 months, the children showed a significant decrease in BMI z-score by 0.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.20; p < 0.005). After 24 months, 103 children (28%) were participating in the program, with a significant decrease in BMI z-score of 0.15 (95% CI 0.07-0.22; p < 0.005). 50 children (13%) were dismissed before the end of the second year due to significant weight loss (standard deviation z-score reduction -0.38; 95% CI 0.30-0.46; p < 0.005; with an average treatment duration of 12.9 ± 6.4 months). There was a negative correlation of age and reduction in BMI z-score: children younger than 6 years showed a decrease in BMI z-score of 0.45 (95% CI 0.26-0.65) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.11-0.53) after 12 and after 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Children showed a significant decrease in BMI z-score after the treatment. We found a negative correlation of age and weight loss. Special attention to patients with a high risk of drop-out might further improve these results. We advise a referral to obesity treatment as early as possible since a 'wait and see' policy might have adverse results in obese children.