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 The evaluation study utilized various data sources, including published data from interviews and questionnaires, and unpublished data derived from emails and conversation notes.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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The role of acculturation in the process of advance care planning among Chinese immigrants: A narrative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Acculturation is the process of two different cultures coming into contact. It is unclear how acculturation influences Chinese immigrants' engagement in advance care planning due to the complexity and multifaceted nature of both acculturation and advance care planning. AIMS: To synthesize evidence regarding the role of Chinese immigrants' acculturation in their engagement in advance care planning. DESIGN: Systematic mixed-method review, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021231822). DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for publications until January 21, 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-one out of 1112 identified articles were included in the analysis. Of those 21 articles, 17 had a qualitative design and 13 originated from the United States. Three of four quantitative studies reported that higher acculturation levels were associated with better knowledge or higher rate of engagement in advance care planning. Analysis of qualitative studies showed that Chinese immigrants' engagement in advance care planning was associated with their: (1) self-perceived cultural identity (native or non-native); (2) interpretation of filial piety (traditional or modern); and (3) interpretation of autonomy (individual or familial). To facilitate their engagement, Chinese immigrants prefer an implicit approach, non-family-related initiators, contextualization advance care planning in Chinese culture and using Chinese language. CONCLUSION: Chinese immigrants' willingness to engage in advance care planning varied with their acculturation level. To engage them in advance care planning, we recommend adapting the introduction of advance care planning to address people's perceptions of their cultural identity, filial piety, and autonomy, as well as their preference for certain approach, initiator, context, and language.

Healthcare use and healthcare costs for patients with advanced cancer; the international ACTION cluster-randomised trial on advance care planning.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning supports patients to reflect on and discuss preferences for future treatment and care. Studies of the impact of advance care planning on healthcare use and healthcare costs are scarce. AIM: To determine the impact on healthcare use and costs of an advance care planning intervention across six European countries. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised trial, registered as ISRCTN63110516, of advance care planning conversations supported by certified facilitators. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer from 23 hospitals in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK. Data on healthcare use were collected from hospital medical files during 12 months after inclusion. RESULTS: Patients with a good performance status were underrepresented in the intervention group (p< 0.001). Intervention and control patients spent on average 9 versus 8 days in hospital (p = 0.07) and the average number of X-rays was 1.9 in both groups. Fewer intervention than control patients received systemic cancer treatment; 79% versus 89%, respectively (p< 0.001). Total average costs of hospital care during 12 months follow-up were €32,700 for intervention versus €40,700 for control patients (p = 0.04 with bootstrap analyses). Multivariable multilevel models showed that lower average costs of care in the intervention group related to differences between study groups in country, religion and WHO-status. No effect of the intervention on differences in costs between study groups was observed (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Lower care costs as observed in the intervention group were mainly related to patients' characteristics. A definite impact of the intervention itself could not be established.

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.

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life: a qualitative interview-study among health care providers on an evolving practice.

BACKGROUND: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) can be used for patients at the end of life who suffer intolerably from severe symptoms that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the Netherlands, the use of CDS is guided by an national guideline since 2005. The percentage of patients for whom CDS is used increased from 8% of all patients who died in 2005 to 18% in 2015. The aim of this study is to explore potential causes of the rise in the use of CDS in the Netherlands according to health care providers who have been participating in this practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants were Dutch health care providers (HCPs), working at patients' homes, hospices, elderly care facilities and in hospitals and experienced in providing CDS, who were recruited via purposeful sampling. RESULTS: 41 Health care providers participated in an interview. For these HCPs the reason to start CDS is often a combination of symptoms resulting in a refractory state. HCPs indicated that symptoms of non-physical origin are increasingly important in the decision to start CDS. Most HCPs felt that suffering at the end of life is less tolerated by patients, their relatives, and sometimes by HCPs; they report more requests to relieve suffering by using CDS. Some HCPs in our study have experienced increasing pressure to perform CDS. Some HCPs stated that they more often used intermittent sedation, sometimes resulting in CDS. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how participating HCPs perceive that their practice of CDS changed over time. The combination of a broader interpretation of refractory suffering by HCPs and a decreased tolerance of suffering at the end of life by patients, their relatives and HCPs, may have led to a lower threshold to start CDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht assessed that the study was exempt from ethical review according to Dutch law (Protocol number 19-435/C).

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.