The development and feasibility study of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic: the MUTUAL intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients still receive non-beneficial treatments when nearing the end of life. Advance care planning (ACP) interventions have shown to positively influence compliance with end of life wishes. Hospital physicians seem to miss opportunities to engage in ACP, whereas patients visiting the outpatient clinic usually have one or more chronic conditions and are at risk for medical emergencies. So far, implemented ACP interventions have had limited impact. Structural implementation of ACP may be beneficial. We hypothesize that having ACP conversations more towards the end of life and involving the treating physician in the ACP conversation may help patient wishes and goals to become more concrete and more often documented, thus facilitating goal-concordant care. AIM: To facilitate timely shared decision making and increase patient autonomy we aim to develop an ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic for frail patients and determine the feasibility of the intervention. METHODS: The United Kingdom's Medical Research Council framework was used to structure the development of the ACP intervention. Key elements of the ACP intervention were determined by reviewing existing literature and an iterative process with stakeholders. The feasibility of the developed intervention was evaluated by a feasibility study of 20 ACP conversations at the geriatrics and pulmonology department of a non-academic hospital. Feasibility was assessed by analysing evaluation forms by patients, nurses and physicians and by evaluating with stakeholders. A general inductive approach was used for analysing comments. The developed intervention was described using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR). RESULTS: We developed a multidisciplinary timely undertaken ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic. Key components of the developed intervention consist of 1) timely patient selection 2) preparation of patient and healthcare professional 3) a scripted ACP conversation in a multidisciplinary setting and 4) documentation. 94.7% of the patients, 60.0% of the nurses and 68.8% of the physicians agreed that the benefits of the ACP conversation outweighed the potential burdens. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the developed ACP intervention is feasible and considered valuable by patients and healthcare professionals.

[Dealing with treatment limitations during anaesthesia]. / Omgaan met behandelgrenzen tijdens anesthesie.

Treatment limitations may create a clinical dilemma during anaesthesia. Because mostly, pre-existing treatment limitations have been decided upon without considering the occurrence of a future medical intervention with its unique circumstances. In case treatment limitations are not reassessed prior to an intervention and a life threatening situation occurs during the intervention, a dilemma may arise between the patient's wishes and physician's actions. For example, overtreatment may occur when treatment limitations are ignored during an intervention without the patient's consent. Or undertreatment may occur if a physician strictly adheres to the treatment limitations without taking the situation of an intervention into account. So, how do we respect a patient's autonomy while striving to provide acute care in the patient's best interests? We suggest (re)considering treatment limitations under anaesthesia with every patient with pre-existing limitations, and ideally, with every fragile patient, prior to an intervention.

[A woman with fever and a painful hip]. / Een vrouw met koorts en een pijnlijke heup.

An immunocompromised 78-year-old woman had a painful hip and subacute fever. An abdominal CT scan revealed a diverticular sigmoid stenosis fistulating to the presacral space, with free gas in the paravertebral musculature and spinal canal. Because a deep necrotising infection was suspected, she underwent surgery and was treated with antibiotics. She recovered completely.

[Treatment in the Intensive Care Unit: continue or withdraw?]. / Behandeling op de IC: stoppen of doorgaan?

End-of-life decision-making in the Intensive Care Unit is a common and complex process. The step-by-step process of decision-making leading to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is illustrated in this paper by a clinical case. A variety of factors influences the decision to adjust the initial curative treatment policy towards withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy and the pursuit of comfort care. For a smooth decision-making process, it is necessary to make a prognosis and obtain consensus amongst the healthcare team. Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is ultimately a medical decision and a consensual decision should be reached by all medical staff and nurses, and preferably also by the patient and family. Timely involvement of a legal representative of the patient is essential for an uncomplicated decision-making process. Advance care planning and advance directives provide opportunities for patients to express their preferences beforehand. It is important to realise that end-of-life decisions are significantly influenced by personal and cultural values.