Failed implementation of a nursing intervention to support family caregivers: An evaluation study using Normalization Process Theory.

AIM: To evaluate the failed implementation of the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool Intervention for family caregivers in end-of-life care, within a trial context using Normalization Process Theory (NPT). DESIGN: An evaluation study was conducted to learn lessons from our trial, which was not successful due to the low number of participants. The evaluation study utilized various data sources, including published data from interviews and questionnaires, and unpublished data derived from emails and conversation notes. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected. Thematic analysis was conducted guided by the NPT framework. This framework emphasizes that successful implementation of an intervention relies on its 'normalization', consisting of four constructs: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. RESULTS: Coherence (sense making): Nurses felt the intervention could contribute to their competence in assessing family caregivers' needs, but some were unsure how it differed from usual practice. Cognitive participation (relational work): Nurse champions played a crucial role in building a community of practice. However, sustaining this community was challenging due to staff turnover and shortages. Collective action (work done to enable the intervention): Nurses felt the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool training enabled them to improve their support of family caregivers. However, contextual factors complicated implementation, such as being used to a patient rather than a family-focused approach and a high workload. Reflexive monitoring (appraisal of the intervention): Positive experiences of the nurses with the intervention motivated them to implement it. However, the research context made nurses hesitant to recruit family caregivers because of the potential burden of participation. CONCLUSION: Although the intervention demonstrated potential to assist nurses in providing tailored support to family caregivers, its integration into daily practice was not optimal. Contextual factors, such as a patient-focused approach to care and the research context, hampered normalization of the intervention. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Assessing and considering contextual factors that may influence implementation of a complex care intervention is needed. The NPT provided a valuable framework for evaluating the implementation process in our study. IMPACT: What problem did the study address? This evaluation study analysed the factors that promoted or hindered the implementation of a nursing intervention to support family caregivers in end-of-life care. What were the main findings? Both the intervention and the intervention training have potential and value for nurses in providing tailored support to family caregivers. However, the implementation faced challenges due to organizational factors and the research context, including recruitment. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? This insight is valuable for all stakeholders involved in implementing complex nursing interventions, including researchers, nurses and funders. REPORTING METHOD: This study has adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no patient or public involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered on the Dutch Trial Register (NL7702).

A qualitative study on redefining normality in relatives of patients with advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain insight into adaptation processes of redefining normality and its influencing factors in relatives of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative study among relatives of patients with advanced cancer was conducted. Participants were purposively recruited. Ten in-depth individual (relative only) and 16 dyad (relative and patient together) interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by means of thematic analysis, drawing on elements of grounded theory, combining both inductive and deductive elements. RESULTS: Two adaptation processes of (redefining) normality were identified: assimilation and accommodation. The latter was found to be the main way of adapting to new events. Assimilative coping strategies entailed "continuing to do the same activities as done before the disease," "difficulty accepting the situation," "avoiding to think about the disease," and "living in the short term." Accommodative strategies involved "arranging practical matters," "thinking about the future," "doing what is feasible," "engaging in new activities," "accepting the situation," "seeking distraction," "living in the short term," and "focusing on what truly matters in life." The interplay between the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, a deteriorating disease status, and the accompanying uncertainty about the future was of influence on the relatives' coping strategies. CONCLUSION: When the new situation is too divergent to assimilate, accommodation may be necessary for relatives to cope with the growing complexity of the consequences of their loved one's illness. Accommodative coping then involves accepting the changing reality and actively making the necessary adjustments to build resilience and cope with the new circumstances.

Improving shared decision-making about cancer treatment through design-based data-driven decision-support tools and redesigning care paths: an overview of the 4D PICTURE project.

Background: Patients with cancer often have to make complex decisions about treatment, with the options varying in risk profiles and effects on survival and quality of life. Moreover, inefficient care paths make it hard for patients to participate in shared decision-making. Data-driven decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, support personalized care, improve health outcomes and promote health equity. However, decision-support tools currently seldom consider quality of life or individual preferences, and their use in clinical practice remains limited, partly because they are not well integrated in patients' care paths. Aim and objectives: The central aim of the 4D PICTURE project is to redesign patients' care paths and develop and integrate evidence-based decision-support tools to improve decision-making processes in cancer care delivery. This article presents an overview of this international, interdisciplinary project. Design methods and analysis: In co-creation with patients and other stakeholders, we will develop data-driven decision-support tools for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer and melanoma. We will support treatment decisions by using large, high-quality datasets with state-of-the-art prognostic algorithms. We will further develop a conversation tool, the Metaphor Menu, using text mining combined with citizen science techniques and linguistics, incorporating large datasets of patient experiences, values and preferences. We will further develop a promising methodology, MetroMapping, to redesign care paths. We will evaluate MetroMapping and these integrated decision-support tools, and ensure their sustainability using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. We will explore the generalizability of MetroMapping and the decision-support tools for other types of cancer and across other EU member states. Ethics: Through an embedded ethics approach, we will address social and ethical issues. Discussion: Improved care paths integrating comprehensive decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, their significant others and healthcare providers in decision-making and improve outcomes. This project will strengthen health care at the system level by improving its resilience and efficiency.

Improving the cancer patient journey and respecting personal preferences: an overview of the 4D PICTURE project The 4D PICTURE project aims to help cancer patients, their families and healthcare providers better undertstand their options. It supports their treatment and care choices, at each stage of disease, by drawing on large amounts of evidence from different types of European data. The project involves experts from many different specialist areas who are based in nine European countries. The overall aim is to improve the cancer patient journey and ensure personal preferences are respected.

Newspaper coverage of advance care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Content analysis.

COVID-19 may cause sudden serious illness, and relatives having to act on patients' behalf, emphasizing the relevance of advance care planning (ACP). We explored how ACP was portrayed in newspapers during year one of the pandemic. In 'LexisNexis Uni', we identified English-language newspaper articles about ACP and COVID-19, published January-November 2020. We applied content analysis; unitizing, sampling, recording or coding, reducing, inferring, and narrating the data. We identified 131 articles, published in UK (n = 59), Canada (n = 32), US (n = 15), Australia (n = 14), Ireland (n = 6), and one each from Israel, Uganda, India, New-Zealand, and France. Forty articles (31%) included definitions of ACP. Most mentioned exploring (93%), discussing (71%), and recording (72%) treatment preferences; 28% described exploration of values/goals, 66% encouraged engaging in ACP. No false or sensationalist information about ACP was provided. ACP was often not fully described. Public campaigns about ACP might improve the full picture of ACP to the public.

Consensus definition of advance care planning in dementia: A 33-country Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Existing advance care planning (ACP) definitional frameworks apply to individuals with decision-making capacity. We aimed to conceptualize ACP for dementia in terms of its definition and issues that deserve particular attention. METHODS: Delphi study with phases: (A) adaptation of a generic ACP framework by a task force of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC); (B) four online surveys by 107 experts from 33 countries, September 2021 to June 2022; (C) approval by the EAPC board. RESULTS: ACP in dementia was defined as a communication process adapted to the person's capacity, which includes, and is continued with, family if available. We identified pragmatic boundaries regarding participation and time (i.e., current or end-of-life care). Three interrelated issues that deserve particular attention were capacity, family, and engagement and communication. DISCUSSION: A communication and relationship-centered definitional framework of ACP in dementia evolved through international consensus supporting inclusiveness of persons with dementia and their family. HIGHLIGHTS: This article offers a consensus definitional framework of advance care planning in dementia. The definition covers all stages of capacity and includes family caregivers. Particularly important are (1) capacity, (2) family, (3) engagement, and communication. Fluctuating capacity was visualized in relation to roles and engaging stakeholders.

Experiences and perceptions of continuous deep sedation: An interview study among Dutch patients and relatives.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of continuous deep sedation (CDS) has more than doubled over the last decade in The Netherlands, while reasons for this increase are not fully understood. Patients and relatives have an essential role in deciding on CDS. We hypothesize that the increase in CDS practice is related to the changing role of patients and relatives in deciding on CDS. OBJECTIVE: To describe perceptions and experiences of patients and relatives with regard to CDS. This insight may help professionals and policymakers to better understand and respond to the evolving practice of CDS. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were held with patients and relatives who had either personal experience with CDS as a relative or had contemplated CDS for themselves. RESULTS: The vast majority of respondents appreciated CDS as a palliative care option, and none of the respondents reported (moral) objections to CDS. The majority of respondents prioritized avoiding suffering at the end of life. The patients and families generally considered CDS a palliative care option for which they can choose. Likewise, according to our respondents, the decision to start CDS was made by them, instead of the physician. Negative experiences with CDS care were mostly related to loss of sense of agency, due to insufficient communication or information provision by healthcare professionals. Lack of continuity of care was also a source of distress. We observed a variety in the respondents' understanding of the distinction between CDS and other end-of-life care decisions, including euthanasia. Some perceived CDS as hastening death. CONCLUSION: The traditional view of CDS as a last resort option for a physician to relieve a patient's suffering at the end of life is not explicit among patients and relatives. Instead, our results show that they perceive CDS as a regular palliative care option. Along with this normalization of CDS, patients and relatives claim a substantial say in the decision-making and are mainly motivated by a wish to avoid suffering and exercise control at the end of life. These distinct views on CDS of patients, their relatives and healthcare providers should be reconciled in guidelines and protocols for CDS. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of the authors in our team (G. H.) has experience with CDS as a relative and ensured that the patient/relative viewpoint was adequately reflected in the design and conduct of our study. In the preliminary phase of our study, G. H. adjusted the topic list so it was better adapted to the current practice of CDS. During the data analysis, G. H. read several interviews and took part in the open and critical discussion on central themes and core concepts as an important member of the author team, thereby guaranteeing the central position of the patient/relative perspective in our final research outcome.

Self-efficacy of advanced cancer patients for participation in treatment-related decision-making in six European countries: the ACTION study.

PURPOSE: Many patients prefer an active role in making decisions about their care and treatment, but participating in such decision-making is challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether patient-reported outcomes (quality of life and patient satisfaction), patients' coping strategies, and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We used baseline data from the ACTION trial of patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer from six European countries, including scores on the decision-making participation self-efficacy (DEPS) scale, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire, and the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to examine associations with self-efficacy scores. RESULTS: The sample included 660 patients with a mean age of 66 years (SD 10). Patients had a mean score of 73 (SD 24) for self-efficacy. Problem-focused coping (B 1.41 (95% CI 0.77 to 2.06)), better quality of life (B 2.34 (95% CI 0.89 to 3.80)), and more patient satisfaction (B 7.59 (95% CI 5.61 to 9.56)) were associated with a higher level of self-efficacy. Patients in the Netherlands had a higher level of self-efficacy than patients in Belgium ((B 7.85 (95% CI 2.28 to 13.42)), whereas Italian patients had a lower level ((B -7.50 (95% CI -13.04 to -1.96)) than those in Belgium. CONCLUSION: Coping style, quality of life, and patient satisfaction with care were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. These factors are important to consider for healthcare professionals when supporting patients in decision-making processes.

Cancer Survivors' Experiences With and Preferences for Medical Information Disclosure and Advance Care Planning: An Online Survey Among Indonesian Cancer Support Groups.

PURPOSE: To understand the experiences and preferences of Indonesian cancer survivors regarding medical information disclosure and advance care planning. METHODS: On the basis of systematic reviews of the scientific literature, qualitative studies, and expert-panel input, we developed an online survey that was distributed to nine cancer survivor support groups in Indonesia. RESULTS: A total of 1,030 valid responses were received. Most participants were younger than 60 years (92%), female (91%), married (78%), Muslim (75%), diagnosed with breast cancer (68%), highly educated (64%), and more than one year beyond diagnosis of their cancer. If diagnosed with a life-limiting illness, participants wished to be informed about their diagnosis (74%), disease severity (61%), estimated curability (81%), expected disease trajectory (66%), and estimated life expectancy (37%). Between 46%-69% of the participants wished to discuss four topics of advance care planning (end-of-life treatments, resuscitation, health care proxies, and what matters at the end of life); 21%-42% had done so. Of those who wished to discuss these topics, 36%-79% preferred to do so with their family members. The most important reasons for not being willing to engage in advance care planning were the desire to surrender to God's will and to focus on here and now. CONCLUSION: In a group of cancer survivors, most of them were highly educated, young, female, and diagnosed with breast cancer. Their preferences for medical information and advance care planning varied, with the majority wishing for information and involvement in advance care planning. Culturally sensitive advance care planning involves health care professionals eliciting individuals' preferences for medical information disclosure and discussing different topics in advance care planning conversations.

Preferences and Attitudes Towards Life-Sustaining Treatments of Older Chinese Patients and Their Family Caregivers.

Purpose: The family plays a major role in medical decision-making in China. Little is known about whether family caregivers understand patients' preference for receiving life-sustaining treatments and are able to make decisions consistent with them when patients are incapable of making medical decisions. We aimed to compare preferences and attitudes concerning life-sustaining treatments of community-dwelling patients with chronic conditions and their family caregivers. Patients and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 150 dyads of community-dwelling patients with chronic conditions and their family caregivers from four communities in Zhengzhou. We measured preferences for life-sustaining treatments (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, tube feeding, hemodialysis, chemotherapy), who should decide, the timing of making decisions, and their most important consideration. Results: The consistency of preferences for life-sustaining treatments between patients and family caregivers was poor to fair, with kappa values ranging from 0.071 for mechanical ventilation to 0.241 for chemotherapy. Family caregivers more frequently preferred each life-sustaining treatment for the patients than the patients themselves. More family caregivers than patients preferred the patient to make their own decisions about life-sustaining treatments (29% of patients and 44% of family caregivers). The most important considerations when deciding on life-sustaining treatments are family burden and the patient's comfort and state of consciousness. Conclusion: There is a poor to fair consistency between community-dwelling older patients and their family caregivers in their preferences and attitudes towards life-sustaining treatments. A minority of patients and family caregivers preferred that patients make their own medical decisions. We recommend healthcare professionals to encourage discussions between patients and their families on future care to improve the mutual understanding within the family about medical decision-making.

Supportive interventions for family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Family caregivers are often intensively involved in palliative and end-of-life cancer care. A variety of interventions to support family caregivers have been developed, differing in target population, modality, and components. We aimed to systematically examine characteristics and the effectiveness of interventions to support family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Cinahl. This review included quantitative studies published from January 2004 until January 2020 reporting on interventions to support family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer in all care settings. RESULTS: Out of 7957 titles, 32 studies were included. Twenty-two studies were randomized controlled trials. Interventions were delivered to four target populations: individual family caregivers (n = 15), family caregiver-patient dyads (n = 11), families (n = 2) and peer groups (n = 4). Most interventions (n = 26) were delivered face-to-face or by phone, two were delivered online. Most interventions included multiple components and were primarily aimed at supporting family caregivers' self-care. Twenty-nine interventions were shown to have beneficial effects on family caregiver outcomes, mostly in the psycho-emotional (n = 24), daily functioning (n = 13) and social dimension (n = 6). Individual interventions were mainly effective in the psycho-emotional dimension, dyad and family interventions in the psycho-emotional and social domain, and group interventions mainly had an effect on daily functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to support family caregivers in advanced cancer care vary widely. Most intervention studies reported beneficial effects for the wellbeing of family caregivers. There is evidence that the target group is associated with beneficial effects on different outcome dimensions.

US and Dutch Perspectives on the Use of COVID-19 Clinical Prediction Models: Findings from a Qualitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical prediction models (CPMs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may support clinical decision making, treatment, and communication. However, attitudes about using CPMs for COVID-19 decision making are unknown. METHODS: Online focus groups and interviews were conducted among health care providers, survivors of COVID-19, and surrogates (i.e., loved ones/surrogate decision makers) in the United States and the Netherlands. Semistructured questions explored experiences about clinical decision making in COVID-19 care and facilitators and barriers for implementing CPMs. RESULTS: In the United States, we conducted 4 online focus groups with 1) providers and 2) surrogates and survivors of COVID-19 between January 2021 and July 2021. In the Netherlands, we conducted 3 focus groups and 4 individual interviews with 1) providers and 2) surrogates and survivors of COVID-19 between May 2021 and July 2021. Providers expressed concern about CPM validity and the belief that patients may interpret CPM predictions as absolute. They described CPMs as potentially useful for resource allocation, triaging, education, and research. Several surrogates and people who had COVID-19 were not given prognostic estimates but believed this information would have supported and influenced their decision making. A limited number of participants felt the data would not have applied to them and that they or their loved ones may not have survived, as poor prognosis may have suggested withdrawal of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Many providers had reservations about using CPMs for people with COVID-19 due to concerns about CPM validity and patient-level interpretation of the outcome predictions. However, several people who survived COVID-19 and their surrogates indicated that they would have found this information useful for decision making. Therefore, information provision may be needed to improve provider-level comfort and patient and surrogate understanding of CPMs. HIGHLIGHTS: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) may provide an objective means of assessing COVID-19 prognosis, provider concerns about CPM validity and the interpretation of CPM predictions may limit their clinical use.Providers felt that CPMs may be most useful for resource allocation, triage, research, or educational purposes for COVID-19.Several survivors of COVID-19 and their surrogates felt that CPMs would have been informative and may have aided them in making COVID-19 treatment decisions, while others felt the data would not have applied to them.

The Web-Based Advance Care Planning Program "Explore Your Preferences for Treatment and Care": Development, Pilot Study, and Before-and-After Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Web-based advance care planning (ACP) programs may support patients in thinking about and discussing their preferences for future treatment and care. However, they are not widely available, and only a limited number of programs are evidence based. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and evaluate an evidence-based, interactive web-based ACP program that guides users through the process of thinking about, discussing, and recording of preferences for treatment and care. METHODS: The program "Explore your preferences for treatment and care" was developed, pilot-tested on feasibility, and subsequently evaluated; engagement in ACP was assessed before program completion and 2 months after program completion using the ACP Engagement Survey (score 1-5) among 147 persons with chronic disease. Usability (score 0-100) and user satisfaction (score 1-5) were also assessed. RESULTS: ACP engagement increased from 2.8 before program completion to 3.0 two months after program completion (P<.001); contemplation about ACP increased from 2.6 to 2.8 (P=.003), and readiness for ACP increased from 2.2 to 2.5 (P<.001). No changes were found for knowledge about ACP (3.0-3.2; P=.07) and self-efficacy for ACP (3.8-3.8; P=.25). The program was perceived as usable (mean 70, SD 13), attractive (mean 3.8, SD 0.7), and comprehensible (mean 4.2, SD 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: We developed an evidence-based, interactive web-based ACP program in cocreation with patients, relatives, and health care professionals. Before-and-after evaluation showed that the program can support people in taking first steps in ACP and in reflecting on preferences for treatment and care, by guiding them through the process of ACP using a stepwise approach. Participants perceived the program as usable and understandable, and they were satisfied with the program and with the amount of information. Health care professionals may use the program as a tool to start ACP discussions with their patients. The program may increase awareness of ACP.

Implementation of a threefold intervention to improve palliative care for persons experiencing homelessness: a process evaluation using the RE-AIM framework.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care provision for persons experiencing homelessness is often poor. A threefold consultation service intervention was expected to increase knowledge of palliative care and multidisciplinary collaboration, and improve palliative care for this population. This intervention comprised: 1) consultation of social service professionals by palliative care specialists and vice versa; 2) multidisciplinary meetings with these professionals; and 3) training and education of these professionals. We aimed to evaluate the implementation process and its barriers and facilitators of this service implemented within social services and healthcare organizations in three Dutch regions. METHODS: A process evaluation using structured questionnaires among consultants, semi-structured individual and group interviews among professionals involved, and (research) diaries. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The process evaluation was structured using the Reach, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance dimensions of the RE-AIM framework. RESULTS: All three regions adopted all three activities of the intervention, with differences between the three regions in the start, timing and frequency. During the 21-month implementation period there were 34 consultations, 22 multidisciplinary meetings and 9 training sessions. The professionals reached were mainly social service professionals. Facilitators for adoption of the service were a perceived need for improving palliative care provision and previous acquaintance with other professionals involved, while professionals' limited skills in recognizing, discussing and prioritizing palliative care hindered adoption. Implementation was facilitated by a consultant's expertise in advising professionals and working with persons experiencing homelessness, and hindered by COVID-19 circumstances, staff shortages and lack of knowledge of palliative care in social service facilities. Embedding the service in regular, properly funded meetings was expected to facilitate maintenance, while the limited number of persons involved in this small-scale service was expected to be an obstacle. CONCLUSIONS: A threefold intervention aimed at improving palliative care for persons experiencing homelessness is evaluated as being most usable when tailored to specific regions, with bedside and telephone consultations and a combination of palliative care consultants and teams of social service professionals. It is recommended to further implement this region-tailored intervention with palliative care consultants in the lead, and to raise awareness and to remove fear of palliative care provision.

Advance care planning for patients with cancer and family caregivers in Indonesia: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals' willingness to engage in advance care planning is influenced by factors such as culture and religious beliefs. While most studies on advance care planning in Asia have been performed in high-income countries, Indonesia is a lower-middle-income country, with a majority of strongly collectivist and religiously devout inhabitants. We studied the perspectives of Indonesian patients with cancer and family caregivers regarding advance care planning by first exploring their experiences with medical information-disclosure, decision-making, and advance care planning and how these experiences influence their perspectives on advance care planning. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews among 16 patients with cancer and 15 family caregivers in a national cancer center in Jakarta and a tertiary academic general hospital in Yogyakarta. We performed an inductive thematic analysis using open, axial, and selective coding. The rigor of the study was enhanced by reflective journaling, dual coding, and investigator triangulation. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 31 participants were younger than 60 years old, 20 were Muslim and Javanese, and 17 were college or university graduates. Four major themes emerged as important in advance care planning: (1) participants' perceptions on the importance or harmfulness of cancer-related information, (2) the importance of communicating bad news sensitively (through empathetic, implicit, and mediated communication), (3) participants' motives for participating in medical decision-making (decision-making seen as patients' right or responsibility, or patients' state of dependency on others), and (4) the complexities of future planning (e.g., due to its irrelevance to participants' religious beliefs and/or their difficulties in seeing the relevance of future planning). CONCLUSIONS: Culturally sensitive approaches to advance care planning in Indonesia should address the importance of facilitating open communication between patients and their families, and the various perspectives on information provision, bad news communication, and decision-making. Advance care planning should focus on the exploration of patients' values, rather than drafting treatment plans in advance.

Prognostic models for COVID-19 needed updating to warrant transportability over time and space.

BACKGROUND: Supporting decisions for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with COVID-19 requires accurate prognostication. We aimed to evaluate prognostic models for predicting outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, in different locations and across time. METHODS: We included patients who presented to the ED with suspected COVID-19 and were admitted to 12 hospitals in the New York City (NYC) area and 4 large Dutch hospitals. We used second-wave patients who presented between September and December 2020 (2137 and 3252 in NYC and the Netherlands, respectively) to evaluate models that were developed on first-wave patients who presented between March and August 2020 (12,163 and 5831). We evaluated two prognostic models for in-hospital death: The Northwell COVID-19 Survival (NOCOS) model was developed on NYC data and the COVID Outcome Prediction in the Emergency Department (COPE) model was developed on Dutch data. These models were validated on subsequent second-wave data at the same site (temporal validation) and at the other site (geographic validation). We assessed model performance by the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC), by the E-statistic, and by net benefit. RESULTS: Twenty-eight-day mortality was considerably higher in the NYC first-wave data (21.0%), compared to the second-wave (10.1%) and the Dutch data (first wave 10.8%; second wave 10.0%). COPE discriminated well at temporal validation (AUC 0.82), with excellent calibration (E-statistic 0.8%). At geographic validation, discrimination was satisfactory (AUC 0.78), but with moderate over-prediction of mortality risk, particularly in higher-risk patients (E-statistic 2.9%). While discrimination was adequate when NOCOS was tested on second-wave NYC data (AUC 0.77), NOCOS systematically overestimated the mortality risk (E-statistic 5.1%). Discrimination in the Dutch data was good (AUC 0.81), but with over-prediction of risk, particularly in lower-risk patients (E-statistic 4.0%). Recalibration of COPE and NOCOS led to limited net benefit improvement in Dutch data, but to substantial net benefit improvement in NYC data. CONCLUSIONS: NOCOS performed moderately worse than COPE, probably reflecting unique aspects of the early pandemic in NYC. Frequent updating of prognostic models is likely to be required for transportability over time and space during a dynamic pandemic.

How can advance care planning support hope in patients with advanced cancer and their families: A qualitative study as part of the international ACTION trial.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians' fears of taking away patients' hope is one of the barriers to advance care planning (ACP). Research on how ACP supports hope is scarce. We have taken up the challenge to specify ways in which ACP conversations may potentially support hope. METHODS: In an international qualitative study, we explored ACP experiences of patients with advanced cancer and their personal representatives (PRs) within the cluster-randomised control ACTION trial. Using deductive analysis of data obtained in interviews following the ACP conversations, this substudy reports on a theme of hope. A latent thematic analysis was performed on segments of text relevant to answer the research question. RESULTS: Twenty patients with advanced cancer and 17 PRs from Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom were participating in post-ACP interviews. Three themes reflecting elements that provide grounds for hope were constructed. ACP potentially supports hope by being (I) a meaningful activity that embraces uncertainties and difficulties; (II) an action towards an aware and empowered position; (III) an act of mutual care anchored in commitments. CONCLUSION: Our findings on various potentially hope supporting elements of ACP conversations provide a constructive way of thinking about hope in relation to ACP that could inform practice.

Development of an advance directive 'communication tool' relevant for patients with advanced cancer in six European countries: Experiences from the ACTION trial.

BACKGROUND: The ACTION trial evaluated the effect of a modified version of the Respecting Choices´ advance care planning programme in patients with advanced cancer in six European countries. For this purpose, an advance directive acceptable for all six ACTION countries to be used for documenting the wishes and preferences of patients and as a communication tool between patients, their caregivers and healthcare staff, was needed. AIM: To describe the development of a multinational cancer specific advance directive, the ´My Preferences form´, which was first based on the 2005 Wisconsin 'Physician Orders of Life Sustaining Treatment´ Form, to be used within the ACTION trial. METHODS: Framework analysis of all textual data produced by members of the international project team during the development of the ACTION advance directives (e.g. drafts, emails, meeting minutes…). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: ACTION consortium members (N = 28) with input from clinicians from participating hospitals (N = 13) and ´facilitators´ (N = 8) who were going to deliver the intervention. RESULTS: Ten versions of the ACTION advance directive, the ´My Preferences form´, were developed and circulated within the ACTION consortium. Extensive modifications took place; removal, addition, modification of themes and modification of clinical to lay terminology. The result was a thematically comprehensive advance directive to be used as a communication tool across the six European countries within the ACTION trial. CONCLUSION: This article shows the complex task of developing an advance directive suitable for cancer patients from six European countries; a process which required the resolution of several cross cultural differences in law, ethics, philosophy and practice. Our hope is that this paper can contribute to a deeper conceptual understanding of advance directives, their role in supporting decision making among patients approaching the end of life and be an inspiration to others wishing to develop a disease-specific advance directive or a standardised multinational advance directive.

Opportunities and challenges for advance care planning in strongly religious family-centric societies: a Focus group study of Indonesian cancer-care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on advance care planning in Asia originate in high-income Asian countries. Indonesia is a middle-income Asian country characterized by its religious devoutness and strong family ties. This study aims to explore the perspectives and experiences of Indonesian healthcare professionals on advance care planning for cancer patients. METHODS: Focus-group discussions were conducted in July and August 2019 and were analysed using thematic content analysis enhanced by dual coding and exploration of divergent views. Purposive sampling of physicians and nurses actively engaged in cancer care in a national cancer centre and a national general hospital. RESULTS: We included 16 physicians and 16 nurses. These participants were open to the idea of advance care planning. We further identified four aspects of this planning that the participants considered to be important: 1) the family's role in medical decision-making; 2) sensitivity to communication norms; 3) patients' and families' religious beliefs regarding the control and sanctity of life; and 4) the availability of a support system for advance care planning (healthcare professionals' education and training, public education, resource allocation, and formal regulation). Participants believed that, although family hierarchical structure and certain religious beliefs may complicate patients' engagement in advance care planning, a considerate approach to involving family and patients' religious perspectives in advance care planning may actually facilitate their engagement in it. CONCLUSION: Indonesian healthcare professionals believed that, for culturally congruent advance care planning in Indonesia, it was essential to respect the cultural aspects of collectivism, communication norms, and patients' religious beliefs.

Nurse Practitioners' Self-Efficacy and Behavior in Supporting Self-Management of Patients With a Progressive, Life-Threatening Illness and Their Relatives: A Nationwide, Cross-Sectional Online Survey.

This study aimed at investigating nurse practitioners' self-efficacy and behavior in supporting self-management of patients with a progressive, life-threatening illness and their relatives. We adapted an existing validated instrument for this purpose, amongst other things by adding a seventh subscale "attention for relatives," and administered it in a nationwide, cross-sectional online survey among Dutch nurse practitioners. We analyzed associations between self-reported self-efficacy and behavior using Pearson correlations and paired sample t tests. Associations between self-efficacy and behavior with nurse practitioners' characteristics were examined using linear regression models. Most nurse practitioners (n = 327; 26% complete responses) were women (93%). Subscale and total scores for nurse practitioners' self-efficacy were moderately positively correlated with those for their behavior in self-management support. Subscale and total scores were statistically significantly higher for their self-efficacy than for their behavior. Increased work experience with patients with a progressive, life-threatening illness was associated with higher scores on self-efficacy and behavior in self-management support. We conclude that nurse practitioners are confident in their ability to support self-management; yet, they do not always use these competencies in practice.

Physicians' Opinion and Practice With the Continuous Use of Sedatives in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: There are few international studies about the continuous use of sedatives (CUS) in the last days of life. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe the experiences and opinions regarding CUS of physicians caring for terminally ill patients in seven countries. METHODS: Questionnaire study about practices and experiences with CUS in the last days of life among physicians caring for terminally ill patients in Belgium (n = 175), Germany (n = 546), Italy (n = 214), Japan (n = 513), the Netherlands (n = 829), United Kingdom (n = 114) and Singapore (n = 21). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 22%. Of the respondents, 88-99% reported that they had clinical experience of CUS in the last 12 months. More than 90% of respondents indicated that they mostly used midazolam for sedation. The use of sedatives to relieve suffering in the last days of life was considered acceptable in cases of physical suffering (87%-99%). This percentage was lower but still substantial in cases of psycho-existential suffering in the absence of physical symptoms (45%-88%). These percentages were lower when the prognosis was at least several weeks (22%-66% for physical suffering and 5%-42% for psycho-existential suffering). Of the respondents, 10% or less agreed with the statement that CUS is unnecessary because suffering can be alleviated with other measures. A substantial proportion (41%-95%) agreed with the statement that a competent patient with severe suffering has the right to demand the use of sedatives in the last days of life. CONCLUSION: Many respondents in our study considered CUS acceptable for the relief of physical and psycho-existential suffering in the last days of life. The acceptability was lower regarding CUS for psycho-existential suffering and regarding CUS for patients with a longer life expectancy.