Hospice care in the Netherlands: who applies and who is admitted to inpatient care?

BACKGROUND: Ten percent of non-sudden deaths in the Netherlands occur in inpatient hospice facilities. To investigate differences between patients who are admitted to inpatient hospice care or not following application, how diagnoses compare to the national population, characteristics of application, and associations with being admitted to inpatient hospice care or not. METHODS: Data from a database representing over 25% of inpatient hospice facilities in the Netherlands were analysed. The study period spanned the years 2007-2012. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to study associations between demographic and application characteristics, and admittance. RESULTS: Ten thousand two hundred fifty-four patients were included. 84.1% of patients applying for inpatient hospice care had cancer compared to 37.0% of deaths nationally. 52.4% of applicants resided in hospital at the time of admission. Most frequent reasons for application were the wish to die in an inpatient hospice facility (70.5%), needing intensive care or support (52.2 ), relieving caregivers (41.4%) and needing pain/symptom control (39.9%). Living alone (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.46-1.94), having cancer (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.76), relieving caregivers (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-1.38), needing pain/symptom control (OR1.72, 95% CI 1.46-2.03) wanting inpatient hospice care until death (vs respite care) (OR 3.59, 95% CI 2.11-6.10), wanting to be admitted as soon as possible (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.42-1.88), and being referred by a primary care professional (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17-1.59) were positively associated with being admitted. Wishing to die in an inpatient hospice facility was negatively associated with being admitted (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that when applying for inpatient hospice care, patients who seem most urgently in need of inpatient hospice care are more frequently admitted. However, non-cancer patients seem to be an under-represented population. Staff should consider application based on need for palliation, irrespective of diagnosis.

Addressing Palliative Sedation during Expert Consultation: A Descriptive Analysis of the Practice of Dutch Palliative Care Consultation Teams.

MAIN OBJECTIVE: Since palliative sedation is considered a complex intervention, consultation teams are increasingly established to support general practice. This study aims to offer insight into the frequency and characteristics of expert consultations regarding palliative sedation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a longitudinal database. This database contained all patient-related consultations by Dutch Palliative Care Consultation teams, that were requested between 2004 and 2011. We described the frequency and characteristics of these consultations, in particular of the subgroup of consultations in which palliative sedation was addressed (i.e. PSa consultations). We used multivariate regression analysis to explore consultation characteristics associated with a higher likelihood of PSa consultations. MAIN RESULTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE: Of the 44,443 initial consultations, most were requested by general practitioners (73%) and most concerned patients with cancer (86%). Palliative sedation was addressed in 18.1% of all consultations. Palliative sedation was relatively more often discussed during consultations for patients with a neurologic disease (OR 1.79; 95% CI: 1.51-2.12) or COPD (OR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.15-1.69) than for patients with cancer. We observed a higher likelihood of PSa consultations if the following topics were also addressed during consultation: dyspnoea (OR 1.30; 95% CI: 1.22-1.40), agitation/delirium (OR 1.57; 95% CI: 1.47-1.68), exhaustion (OR 2.89; 95% CI: 2.61-3.20), euthanasia-related questions (OR 2.65; 95% CI: 2.37-2.96) or existential issues (OR 1.55; 95% CI: 1.31-1.83). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, PSa consultations accounted for almost one-fifth of all expert consultations and were associated with several case-related characteristics. These characteristics may help clinicians in identifying patients at risk for a more complex disease trajectory at the end of life.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of the Liverpool Care Pathway in the Netherlands: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is a quality instrument for the dying patient. This study evaluates barriers and facilitators to its implementation in the Netherlands from the perspective of key stakeholders, to inform future implementation processes. METHODS: An interview study was conducted among 28 stakeholders involved in implementation of the LCP in the Netherlands, followed by a consecutive focus group with 8 interviewees to discuss and validate the findings of the interview study. Interviews were conducted by telephone and the notes taken during the interviews and focus group were transcribed into non-verbatim transcripts. Data collected during the interviews and focus group were evaluated using thematic analysis. RESULTS: According to the stakeholders, a context analysis prior to implementation was useful to find the appropriate orientation to adequately motivate healthcare professionals as well as management. The main contributing factors were the quality of the LCP (including its evidence-based character and completeness), and that it fitted the needs of healthcare professionals. During the implementation phase, a multidisciplinary project team, competent support and continuous monitoring were identified as important facilitators. Furthermore, for successful implementation, a facilitator working in liaison with others was helpful. To guarantee sustainability of the use of the LCP, it was important to disentangle tasks from the project leader and formally integrate these into the quality systems of the organisation. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch experience with large-scale implementation of the LCP has identified important barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a quality instrument within palliative care. To successfully implement such a promising instrument, liaison with others is important. The sense of being part of a process of improvement is valuable, while consolidation of this idea contributes to successful implementation.

Early identification of and proactive palliative care for patients in general practice, incentive and methods of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: According to the Word Health Organization, patients who can benefit from palliative care should be identified earlier to enable proactive palliative care. Up to now, this is not common practice and has hardly been addressed in scientific literature. Still, palliative care is limited to the terminal phase and restricted to patients with cancer. Therefore, we trained general practitioners (GPs) in identifying palliative patients in an earlier phase of their disease trajectory and in delivering structured proactive palliative care. The aim of our study is to determine if this training, in combination with consulting an expert in palliative care regarding each palliative patient's tailored care plan, can improve different aspects of the quality of the remaining life of patients with severe chronic diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure and cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-armed randomized controlled trial was performed. As outcome variables we studied: place of death, number of hospital admissions and number of GP out of hours contacts. DISCUSSION: We expect that this study will increase the number of identified palliative care patients and improve different aspects of quality of palliative care. This is of importance to improve palliative care for patients with COPD, CHF and cancer and their informal caregivers, and to empower the GP. The study protocol is described and possible strengths and weaknesses and possible consequences have been outlined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR2815.