Identifying patients who could benefit from palliative care by making use of the general practice information system: the Surprise Question versus the SPICT.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the performance of two tools to help general practitioners (GPs) identify patients in need of palliative care: the Surprise Question (SQ) and the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT). METHODS: Prospective cohort study in two general practices in the Netherlands with a size of 3640 patients. At the start of the study the GPs selected patients by heart using the SQ. The SPICT was translated into a digital search in electronic patient records. The GPs then selected patients from the list thus created. Afterwards the GPs were interviewed about their experiences. The following year a record was kept of all the patients deceased in both practices. We analysed the characteristics of the patients selected and the deceased. We calculated the performance characteristics concerning predicting 1-year mortality. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the SQ was 50%, of the SPICT 57%; the specificity 99% and 98%. When analysing the deceased (n = 36), 10 died relatively suddenly and arguably could not be identified. Leaving out these 10, the sensitivity of the SQ became 69%, of the SPICT 81%. The GPs found the performance of the digital search quite time consuming. CONCLUSION: The SPICT seems to be better in identifying patients in need of palliative care than the SQ. It is also more time consuming than the SQ. However, as the digital search can be performed more easily after it has been done for the first time, initial investments can repay themselves.

Continuing or forgoing treatment at the end of life? Preferences of the general public and people with an advance directive.

BACKGROUND: We studied preferences on continuing or forgoing different types of treatments at the end of life in two groups: the general public and people with an advance directive (AD). Furthermore, we studied factors associated with these preferences and whether people's preferences concurred with the content of their AD. METHODS: A representative sample of the Dutch population (n=1402) and a cohort of people who own an AD, consisting of members of Right to Die-NL (NVVE, n=5661) and the Christian-orientated Nederlandse Patiënten Vereniging (NPV, n=1059), answered written questionnaires in 2005 or 2007. We used two hypothetical scenarios, about cancer and dementia, and asked questions about continuing or forgoing four medical treatments. RESULTS: A majority of the Dutch public (62-87%) and NVVE members (88-99%) wanted to forgo the different treatments in both scenarios, while members of the NPV generally wanted to continue treatment (46-73%). In all three groups, in both scenarios, a substantial group (13-38%) had different preferences for the different treatments. People were more explicit in their preferences in case of dementia than in case of cancer. Being female, over 55 years of age, having had a higher education and having no (significant) religion increased the odds to refuse treatment. ADs that gave the direction to refuse treatment generally concurred with the preference of their owners (85-98% wanting to refuse treatments). DISCUSSION: The fact that people with and without ADs have different preferences concerning different treatments and diseases stresses the importance of communication surrounding decision making at the end of life.

Design of the Advance Directives Cohort: a study of end-of-life decision-making focusing on Advance Directives.

BACKGROUND: ADs are documents in which one can state one's preferences concerning end-of-life care, aimed at making someone's wishes known in situations where he/she is not able to do so in another manner. There is still a lot unclear about ADs. We designed a study aimed at investigating the whole process from the formulating of an AD to its actual use at the end of life. METHODS/DESIGN: The study has mixed methods: it's longitudinal, consisting of a quantitative cohort-study which provides a framework for predominantly qualitative sub-studies. The members of the cohort are persons owning an AD, recruited through two Dutch associations who provide the most common standard ADs in the Netherlands, the NVVE (Right to Die-NL), of which 5561 members participate, and the NPV (Dutch Patient Organisation), of which 1263 members participate. Both groups were compared to a sample of the Dutch general public. NVVE-respondents are more often single, higher educated and non-religious, while amongst NPV-respondents there are more Protestants compared to the Dutch public. They are sent a questionnaire every 1,5 year with a follow-up of at least 7,5 years. The response rate after the second round was 88% respectively 90% for the NVVE and NPV. Participants were asked if we were allowed to approach close-ones after their possible death in the future. In this way we can get insight in the actual use of ADs at the end of life, also by comparing our data to that from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, whose respondents generally do not have an AD. DISCUSSION: The cohort is representative for people with an AD as is required to study the main research questions. The longitudinal nature of the study as well as the use of qualitative methods makes it has a broad scope, focusing on the whole course of decision-making involving ADs. It is possible to compare the end of life between patients with and without an AD with the use of data from another cohort.

Advance directives in the Netherlands: an empirical contribution to the exploration of a cross-cultural perspective on advance directives.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: This study focuses on ADs in the Netherlands and introduces a cross-cultural perspective by comparing it with other countries. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to a panel comprising 1621 people representative of the Dutch population. The response was 86%. RESULTS: 95% of the respondents didn't have an AD, and 24% of these were not familiar with the idea of drawing up an AD. Most of those familiar with ADs knew about the Advanced Euthanasia Directive (AED, 64%). Both low education and the presence of a religious conviction that plays an important role in one's life increase the chance of not wanting to draw up an AD. Also not having experienced a request for euthanasia from someone else, and the inconceivability of asking for euthanasia yourself, increase the chance of not wanting to draw up an AD. DISCUSSION: This study shows that the subjects of palliative care and end-of-life-decision-making were very much dominated by the issue of euthanasia in the Netherlands. The AED was the best known AD; and factors that can be linked to euthanasia play an important role in whether or not people choose to draw up an AD. This differentiates the Netherlands from other countries and, when it comes to ADs, the global differences between countries and cultures are still so large that the highest possible goals, at this moment in time, are observing and possibly learning from other cultural settings.

Preferences on forgoing end-of-life treatment are stable over time with people owning an advance directive; A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We studied if preferences about end-of-life care of people having an advance directive (AD) stay stable over time and if (in) stability is associated with health status. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study with a population owning different types of ADs (n = 4638). Respondents repeatedly answered questionnaires between 2005-2010. Using hypothetical scenarios about advanced cancer and dementia we assessed preferences for continuing or forgoing resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, artificial nutrition and antibiotics. Using generalized estimated equations we analysed whether life-events and quality of life influenced changes in preferences. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents with stable preferences ranged from 67 to 98 %. Preferences were most stable concerning resuscitation and least stable concerning mechanical ventilation. In only a few instances we found life-events or a change in quality of life could both increase or decrease odds to change preferences. CONCLUSION: Preferences concerning continuing or forgoing treatment at the end of life are stable for a majority of people with ADs, which supports their validity. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The value of on-going communication about preferences between patients and caregivers is confirmed by our findings concerning differences in stability between treatments and the association between stability of preferences and life-events or quality of life.

Stability of end-of-life preferences in relation to health status and life-events: A cohort study with a 6-year follow-up among holders of an advance directive.

BACKGROUND: Stating preferences about care beforehand using advance care planning and advance directives has become increasingly common in current medicine. There is still lack of clarity what happens over the course of time in relation to these preferences. We wanted to determine whether the preferences about end-of-life care of a person owning an advance directive stay stable after the experience of a life-event; how often advance directives are altered and discussed with family members and physicians over time. DESIGN: A longitudinal cohort study with a population consisting of people owning the most common advance directives in the Netherlands, with a follow-up of 6-years from 2005 until 2011. Respondents were recruited using two associations that provided the advance directives, Right to Die-NL (n = 4463) and the Dutch Patient Organisation (n = 1263). Each 1.5 year a questionnaire was sent. We analyzed the relationship between variables using generalized estimated equations. RESULTS: 96.9-98.1% of the respondents who had experienced a life-event had stable preferences. 89.9-93.7% of Right-to-Die-NL-members who had experienced a life-event didn't make any alterations in their advance directives. During the 6-year course of our study, a minority of both groups didn't discuss their advance directive with anyone (8.7-16.4%), while a majority didn't discuss it with physicians (ranging 58.1-95.1%). Factors related to health, such as deterioration in experienced health, increased the odds to discuss advance directives. CONCLUSION: Our results largely dispute criticism concerning usability of advance directives due to lack of stability of preferences. Whereas a change in health status and the experience of other life-events were not related to instability in preferences, they did increase the odds of communication about advance directives. Because our results show that the possession of an advance directive does not necessarily result in frequent discussions between patients and caregivers, a more structured approach like advance care planning might be a solution.

Motivations, aims and communication around advance directives: a mixed-methods study into the perspective of their owners and the influence of a current illness.

OBJECTIVE: What are motivations of owners of an advance directive (AD) to draft an AD, what do they aim for with their AD and do they communicate about their AD? METHODS: Written questionnaires were sent to a cohort of people owning different types of ADs (n=5768). A purposive sample of people suffering from an illness was selected from the cohort for an in-depth interview (n=29). RESULTS: About half of our population had no direct motivation to draft their AD. Most mentioned motivation for the other half was an illness of a family member or friend. Many different and specific aims for drafting an AD were mentioned. An often mentioned more general aim in people with different ADs was to prevent unnecessary lengthening of life or treatment (14-16%). Most respondents communicated about having an AD with close-ones (63-88%) and with their GP (65-79%). In the interviews people gave vivid examples of experiences of what they hoped to prevent at the end of life. Some mentioned difficulties foreseeing the future and gave examples of response shift. CONCLUSION: ADs can give directions to caregivers about what people want at the end of life. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: ADs have to be discussed in detail by their owners and caregivers, since owners often have specific aims with their AD.