Het generalist-plus-specialistische palliatieve zorgmodel wordt wereldwijd onderschreven. In Nederland zijn de competenties en het profiel van de generalistische aanbieder van palliatieve zorg beschreven op alle professionele niveaus in de verpleegkunde en geneeskunde.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundHospital admissions are common in the last phase of life. However, palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) are provided late or not at all during hospital admission.AimTo provide insight into the perceptions of in-hospital healthcare professionals concerning current and ideal practice and roles of in-hospital palliative care and advance care planning.MethodsAn electronic cross-sectional survey was send 398 in-hospital healthcare professionals in five hospitals in the Netherlands. The survey contained 48 items on perceptions of palliative care and ACP.ResultsWe included non-specialists who completed the questions of interest, resulting in analysis of 96 questionnaires. Most respondents were nurses (74%). We found that current practice for initiating palliative care and ACP was different to what is considered ideal practice. Ideally, ACP should be initiated for almost every patient for whom no treatment options are available (96.2%), and in case of progression and severe symptoms (94.2%). The largest differences between current and ideal practice were found for patients with functional decline (Current 15.2% versus Ideal 78.5%), and patients with an estimated life expectancy <1 year (Current 32.6% versus ideal 86.1%). Respondents noted that providing palliative care requires collaboration, however, especially nurses noted barriers like a lack of inter-professional consensus.ConclusionsThe differences between current and ideal practice demonstrate that healthcare professionals are willing to improve palliative care. To do this, nurses need to increase their voice, a shared vision of palliative care and recognition of the added value of working together is needed.
MULTIFILE
Background: A transitional care pathway (TCP) could improve care for older patients in the last months of life. However, barriers exist such as unidentified palliative care needs and suboptimal collaboration between care settings. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a TCP, named PalliSupport, for older patients at the end of life, prior to a stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial. Methods: A mixed-method feasibility study was conducted at one hospital with affiliated primary care. Patients were ≥ 60 years and acutely hospitalized. The intervention consisted of (1) training on early identification of the palliative phase and end of life conversations, (2) involvement of a transitional palliative care team during admission and post-discharge and (3) intensified collaboration between care settings. Outcomes were feasibility of recruitment, data collection, patient burden and protocol adherence. Experiences of 14 professionals were assessed through qualitative interviews. Results: Only 16% of anticipated participants were included which resulted in difficulty assessing other feasibility criteria. The qualitative analysis identified misunderstandings about palliative care, uncertainty about professionals' roles and difficulties in initiating end of life conversations as barriers. The training program was well received and professionals found the intensified collaboration beneficial for patient care. The patients that participated experienced low burden and data collection on primary outcomes and protocol adherence seems feasible. Discussion: This study highlights the importance of performing a feasibility study prior to embarking on effectiveness studies. Moving forward, the PalliSupport care pathway will be adjusted to incorporate a more active recruitment approach, additional training on identification and palliative care, and further improvement on data collection.
