"Trying to write a story together": general practitioners' perspectives on culturally sensitive care.

BACKGROUND: Culturally sensitive care is integral to effective and equitable healthcare delivery, necessitating an understanding and acknowledgment of patients' cultural needs, preferences, and expectations. This study investigates the perceptions of cultural sensitivity among general practitioners (GPs), focusing on their intentions, willingness and perceived responsibilities in providing care tailored to cultural needs. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 21 Flemish GPs to explore their perspectives on culturally sensitive care. Data analysis followed a conventional qualitative content analysis approach within a constructivist framework. A coding scheme was developed to identify recurring themes and patterns in the GPs' responses. RESULTS: Findings reveal that culturally sensitive care provision is perceived as a multifaceted process, initiated by an exploration phase where GPs inquire about patients' cultural needs and preferences. Two pivotal factors shaping culturally sensitive care emerged: patients' specific cultural expectations and GPs' perceived responsibilities. These factors guided the process of culturally sensitive care towards three distinct outcomes, ranging from complete adaptation to patients' cultural requirements driven by a high sense of responsibility, through negotiation and compromise, to a paternalistic approach where GPs expect patients to conform to GPs' values and expectations. Three typologies of GPs in providing culturally sensitive care were identified: genuinely culturally sensitive, surface-level culturally sensitive, and those perceiving diversity as a threat. Stereotyping and othering persist in healthcare, underscoring the importance of critical consciousness and cultural reflexivity in providing patient-centered and equitable care. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the significance of empathy and underscores the necessity for GPs to embrace the exploration and acknowledgement of patients' preferences and cultural needs as integral aspects of their professional role. It highlights the importance of shared decision-making, critical consciousness, cultural desire and empathy. Understanding these nuances is essential for enhancing culturally sensitive care and mitigating healthcare disparities.

Do cancer centres and palliative care wards routinely measure patients' quality of life? An international cross-sectional survey study.

PURPOSE: Routinely assessing quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer is crucial for improving patient-centred cancer care. However, little is known about whether or how cancer centres assess QoL for clinical practice or for research purposes. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate if QoL data is collected and if so, how and for what purposes. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study among 32 cancer centres in Europe and Canada. Centre representatives identified persons who they judged to have sufficient insight into QoL data collections in their wards to complete the survey. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the information on QoL assessment and documentation. RESULTS: There were 20 (62.5%) responding cancer centres. In total, 30 questionnaires were completed, of which 13 were completed for cancer wards and 17 for palliative care wards. We found that 23.1% and 38.5% of the cancer wards routinely assessed QoL among inpatients and outpatients with cancer, respectively, whereas, in palliative care wards, 52.9% assessed QoL for outpatients with cancer and 70.6% for the inpatients. Wide variabilities were observed between the cancer centres in how, how often, when and which instruments they used to assess QoL. CONCLUSION: A sizable proportion of the cancer wards, especially, and palliative care wards apparently does not routinely assess patients' QoL, and we found wide variabilities between the cancer centres in how they do it. To promote routine assessment of patients' QoL, we proposed several actions, such as addressing barriers to implementing patient-reported outcome measures through innovative e-health platforms.

Physicians' Experiences and Perceptions of Environmental Factors Affecting Their Practices of Continuous Deep Sedation until Death: A Secondary Qualitative Analysis of an Interview Study.

As previous research has paid little attention to environmental factors affecting the practice of continuous deep sedation until death (CDS), we aimed to explore these using physicians' experiences and perceptions. We performed an interpretative thematic analysis of primary data from a qualitative interview study conducted from February to May 2019 in Belgium with 47 physicians. Structural factors were identified: the lack of professional and/or technical support in monitoring sedated patients; the use of guidelines in team contexts; the time constraints for treating individual patients and work pressure; the structural knowledge gap in medical education; the legal context for assisted dying; and the lack of a clear legal context for CDS. Cultural factors were identified: the moral reservations of care teams and/or institutions towards CDS; the presence of a palliative care culture within care teams and institutions; the culture of fear of making clinical errors regarding CDS among a group of physicians; the professional stigma of performing assisted dying among some of the physician population; the different understandings of CDS in medical and policy fields; and the societal taboo around suffering at the end of life and natural death. To conclude, improving CDS practice requires a whole-system approach considering environmental factors.

Intercountry and intracountry variations in opinions of palliative care specialist physicians in Germany, Italy, Japan and UK about continuous use of sedatives: an international cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore intercountry and intracountry differences in physician opinions about continuous use of sedatives (CUS), and factors associated with their approval of CUS. SETTINGS: Secondary analysis of a questionnaire study. PARTICIPANTS: Palliative care physicians in Germany (N=273), Italy (N=198), Japan (N=334) and the UK (N=111). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician approval for CUS in four situations, intention and treatment goal, how to use sedatives and beliefs about CUS. RESULTS: There were no significant intercountry or intracountry differences in the degree of agreement with statements that (1) CUS is not necessary as suffering can always be relieved with other measures (mostly disagree); (2) intention of CUS is to alleviate suffering and (3) shortening the dying process is not intended. However, there were significant intercountry differences in agreement with statements that (1) CUS is acceptable for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering; (2) decrease in consciousness is intended and (3) choice of neuroleptics or opioids. Acceptability of CUS for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering and whether decrease in consciousness is intended also showed wide intracountry differences. Also, the proportion of physicians who agreed versus disagreed with the statement that CUS may not alleviate suffering adequately even in unresponsive patients, was approximately equal. Regression analyses revealed that both physician-related and country-related factors were independently associated with physicians' approval of CUS. CONCLUSION: Variations in use of sedatives is due to both physician- and country-related factors, but palliative care physicians consistently agree on the value of sedatives to aid symptom control. Future research should focus on (1) whether sedatives should be used in patients with longer survival or with primarily psychoexistential suffering, (2) understanding physicians' intentions and treatment goals, (3) efficacy of different drugs and (4) understanding the actual experiences of patients receiving CUS.

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.

Control Measures for Continuous Deep Sedation Until Death: A Framing Analysis of the Views of Physicians.

Physicians have been subject to increasing external control to improve their medical practice, and scholars have theorized extensively about their opposition to such control. However, little empirical attention has been paid to the views and reasoning that lie behind this opposition. An in-depth understanding is necessary for enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of external controls, and continuous deep sedation until death (CDS) is an interesting case in this regard. This study aims to explore how physicians frame control measures for CDS. We conducted 47 semi-structured interviews with Belgian physicians in 2019. A qualitative framing analysis was performed to analyze their views and reasoning. This study reveals that physicians approach CDS practice and control measures with different emphases. Controlling by mechanisms of professional self-regulation and state governance are put forward as appropriate means to improve CDS practice. Policymakers should take into consideration physicians' frames to develop sound control measures.

Continuous Palliative Sedation Until Death: The Development of a Practice Protocol for Nursing Homes.

OBJECTIVES: Challenges inherent in the practice of continuous palliative sedation until death appear to be particularly pervasive in nursing homes. We aimed to develop a protocol to improve the quality of the practice in Belgian nursing homes. METHODS: The development of the protocol was based on the Medical Research Council Framework and made use of the findings of a systematic review of existing improvement initiatives and focus groups with 71 health care professionals [palliative care physicians, general practitioners (GPs), and nursing home staff] identifying perceived barriers to the use of continuous palliative sedation until death in nursing homes. The protocol was then reviewed and refined by another 70 health care professionals (palliative care physicians, geriatricians, GPs, and nursing home staff) through 10 expert panels. RESULTS: The final protocol was signed off by expert panels after 2 consultation rounds in which the remaining issues were ironed out. The protocol encompassed 7 sequential steps and is primarily focused on clarification of the medical and social situation, communication with all care providers involved and with the resident and/or relatives, the organization of care, the actual performance of continuous sedation, and the supporting of relatives and care providers during and after the procedure. Although consistent with existing guidelines, our protocol describes more comprehensively recommendations about coordination and collaboration practices in nursing homes as well as specific matters such as how to communicate with fellow residents and give them the opportunity to say goodbye in some way to the person who is dying. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study succeeded in developing a practice protocol for continuous palliative sedation until death adapted to the specific context of nursing homes. Before implementing it, future research should focus on developing profound implementation strategies and on thoroughly evaluating its effectiveness.

A systematic review of quality improvement initiatives for continuous sedation until death.

BACKGROUND: Extensive debate surrounds the practice of continuous sedation until death within end-of-life care. AIM: To provide insight into existing initiatives to support the practice of continuous sedation until death and assess their feasibility and effectiveness. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis, registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020149630). DATA SOURCES: Records were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to April 16 2020. Peer-reviewed studies reporting original data on initiatives to support the practice of continuous sedation were included for review. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the criteria and were included. Initiatives were focused on assessment tools of consciousness and discomfort (9), the use of guidelines and protocols (8), and expert consultation (3). All initiatives were reported as useful, acceptable, and feasible. Studies on the use of monitoring devices showed that a small proportion of patients were found to be awake, despite the patient being unresponsive according to the observer-based sedation scales. However, the wide range of values of these monitoring devices for comfortable and adequately sedated patients seems to hamper its overall implementation in daily clinical practice. Physicians reported changes in practice conform to guideline recommendations but the shift was modest at best. Expert consultation was regarded as supportive when sufficient expertise is lacking and helpful in avoiding possibly unnecessary sedations. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed initiatives may contribute to improvement of continuous sedation until death, though their evidence base is rather limited. More insight is needed into their feasibility, preconditions for effective implementation and impact in actual practice.

Barriers in the Decision Making About and Performance of Continuous Sedation Until Death in Nursing Homes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While decision making about and performance of continuous sedation involve many challenges, they appear to be particularly pervasive in nursing homes. This study aims to identify barriers to the decision making and performance of continuous sedation until death in Flemish nursing homes as experienced by the health care professionals involved. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ten focus groups were held with 71 health care professionals including 16 palliative care physicians, 42 general practitioners, and 13 nursing home staff. Discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: Perceived barriers concerned factors prior to and during sedation and were classified according to three types: (a) personal barriers related to knowledge and skills including the lack of clarity on what continuous sedation should be used for (linguistic ambiguity) and when and how it should be used (practical ambiguity); (b) relational barriers concerning communication and collaboration both between health care professionals and with family; (c) organizational barriers related to the organization of care in nursing homes where, for example, there is no on-site physician, or where the recommended medication is not always available. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The findings suggest there are considerable challenges for sound decision making about and performance of continuous sedation until death in nursing homes. There is a need for multicomponent initiatives that provide guidance in the context of the complexity of a resident's medical situation, the family, and the specific organization of care, which would have the potential to facilitate and improve the decision-making process and performance of continuous sedation in nursing homes.

The involvement of cancer patients in the four stages of decision-making preceding continuous sedation until death: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients in decision-making is considered to be particularly appropriate towards the end of life. Professional guidelines emphasize that the decision to initiate continuous sedation should be made in accordance with the wishes of the dying person and be preceded by their consent. AIM: To describe the decision-making process preceding continuous sedation until death with particular attention to the involvement of the person who is dying. DESIGN: Qualitative case studies using interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Interviews with 26 physicians, 30 nurses and 24 relatives caring for 24 patients with cancer who received continuous sedation until death in Belgium, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. RESULTS: We distinguished four stages of decision-making: initiation, information exchange, deliberation and the decision to start continuous sedation until death. There was wide variation in the role the patient had in the decision-making process. At one end of the spectrum (mostly in the United Kingdom), the physician discussed the possible use of sedation with the patient, but took the decision themselves. At the other end (mostly in Belgium and the Netherlands), the patient initiated the conversation and the physician's role was largely limited to evaluating if and when the medical criteria were met. CONCLUSION: Decision-making about continuous sedation until death goes through four stages and the involvement of the patient in the decision-making varies. Acknowledging the potential sensitivity of raising the issue of end-of-life sedation, we recommend building into clinical practice regular opportunities to discuss the goals and preferences of the person who is dying for their future medical treatment and care.

International variations in clinical practice guidelines for palliative sedation: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Palliative sedation is a highly debated medical practice, particularly regarding its proper use in end-of-life care. Worldwide, guidelines are used to standardise care and regulate this practice. In this review, we identify and compare national/regional clinical practice guidelines on palliative sedation against the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) palliative sedation Framework and assess the developmental quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. METHODS: Using the PRISMA criteria, we searched multiple databases (PubMed, CancerLit, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence and Google Scholar) for relevant guidelines, and selected those written in English, Dutch and Italian; published between January 2000 and March 2016. RESULTS: Of 264 hits, 13 guidelines-Belgium, Canada (3), Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Europe, and USA (2) were selected. 8 contained at least 9/10 recommendations published in the EAPC Framework; 9 recommended 'pre-emptive discussion of the potential role of sedation in end-of-life care'; 9 recommended 'nutrition/hydration while performing sedation' and 8 acknowledged the need to 'care for the medical team'. There were striking differences in terminologies used and in life expectancy preceding the practice. Selected guidelines were conceptually similar, comparing closely to the EAPC Framework recommendations, albeit with notable variations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on AGREE II, 3 guidelines achieved top scores and could therefore be recommended for use in this context. Also, domains 'scope and purpose' and 'editorial independence' ranked highest and lowest, respectively-underscoring the importance of good reportage at the developmental stage.

Trends in Continuous Deep Sedation until Death between 2007 and 2013: A Repeated Nationwide Survey.

BACKGROUND: Continuous deep sedation until death is a highly debated medical practice, particularly regarding its potential to hasten death and its proper use in end-of-life care. A thorough analysis of important trends in this practice is needed to identify potentially problematic developments. This study aims to examine trends in the prevalence and practice characteristics of continuous deep sedation until death in Flanders, Belgium between 2007 and 2013, and to study variation on physicians' degree of palliative training. METHODS: Population-based death certificate study in 2007 and 2013 in Flanders, Belgium. Reporting physicians received questionnaires about medical practices preceding the patient's death. Patient characteristics, clinical characteristics (drugs used, duration, artificial nutrition/hydration, intention and consent), and palliative care training of attending physician were recorded. We posed the following question regarding continuous deep sedation: 'Was the patient continuously and deeply sedated or kept in a coma until death by the use of one or more drugs'. RESULTS: After the initial rise of continuous deep sedation to 14.5% in 2007 (95%CI 13.1%-15.9%), its use decreased to 12.0% in 2013 (95%CI 10.9%-13.2%). Compared with 2007, in 2013 opioids were less often used as sole drug and the decision to use continuous deep sedation was more often preceded by patient request. Compared to non-experts, palliative care experts more often used benzodiazepines and less often opioids, withheld artificial nutrition/hydration more often and performed sedation more often after a request from or with the consent of the patient or family. CONCLUSION: Worldwide, this study is the first to show a decrease in the prevalence of continuous deep sedation. Despite positive changes in performance and decision-making towards more compliance with due care requirements, there is still room for improvement in the use of recommended drugs and in the involvement of patients and relatives in the decision-making process.

End-of-life decisions in individuals dying with dementia in Belgium.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of end-of-life decisions in individuals dying with dementia in Belgium. DESIGN: Retrospective mail survey. SETTING: Brussels and Flanders, Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians certifying a large random sample of deaths (n = 8,627). MEASUREMENTS: End-of-life decision-making in individuals dying with dementia (n = 361) was compared through bivariate and multivariable analyses with decision-making in individuals dying from cancer (n = 1,276) as reference group. RESULTS: Response rate was 54.7%. The intense pain and symptoms of individuals with dementia was alleviated less often than those of individuals with cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 0.50, P < .001), and individuals with dementia were more likely to have life-prolonging treatment withheld or withdrawn (OR = 1.40, P = .048). Five individuals with dementia (1.3%) requested euthanasia but did not receive it; 60 (4.7%) individuals with cancer who requested euthanasia received it, and 48 (3.8%) who requested it did not (OR = 0.04, P = .047). Individuals with dementia rarely had capacity to participate in decision-making, which more often involved their families than in individuals with cancer (OR = 1.99, P = .009). Little prospect of improvement (59.7%), pointless life prolongation (54.5%), poor quality of life (46.2%), and prevention of further suffering (37.6%) were important reasons for end-of-life decisions in individuals with dementia. CONCLUSION: End-of-life decision-making in individuals dying with dementia differs from that in individuals with cancer, more often involving forgoing of life-prolonging treatment and less often involving intensifying pain and symptom treatment. Considerations typically involve the prospects of the individual with dementia as opposed to the severity of their present situation. Optimal processes of advance care planning may address the burdensome decision falling to physicians and family regarding when to allow the individual to die.