Search

Background: Residential aged care facilities is one of the most common places to deliver of end of life care. A lack of evidence regarding preferred place for end of life care for residents of aged care facilities impacts on delivery of care and prevents assessment of quality of care. This paper reports the preferences, current status of end of life care and enablers and barriers of care being delivered in line with the wishes of residents of participating aged care facilities. Methods: We collaborated with six equally sized aged care facilities from the Greater Newcastle area, New South Wales, Australia. An audit of the quality of end of life care for residents was conducted by retrospective medical record review (n = 234 deceased patients). A retrospective review of emergency department transfers was conducted to determine the rate of transfer and assign avoidable or not. Qualitative focus group and individual interviews were conducted and analysed for barriers and enablers to end of life care being delivered in accordance with residents' wishes. Results: Most residents (96.7%) wished to remain in their residential aged care facility if their health deteriorated in an expected way. Residents of facilities whose model of care integrated nurse practitioners had the lowest rates of emergency department transfers and timelier symptom management at end of life. Family decision making influenced location of death (either supporting or preventing care in place of patient preference). Conclusion(s): To better provide care in accordance with a person's wishes, aged care facilities need to be supported to enable end of life care insitu through integrated care with relevant palliative care providers, education and communication strategies. Family and community health and death literacy interventions should accompany clinical innovation to ensure delivery of care in accordance with residents' preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study aimed to further our understanding of second opinions among medical oncology patients by examining the proportion of patients who sought a second opinion about their cancer treatment, and why. Methods: The study was conducted between 2013 and 2015 in three medical oncology clinics located in public hospitals in Australia: in metropolitan New South Wales, metropolitan Queensland, and in Tasmania. Those patients who provide written informed consent were asked to complete a brief paper and pencil survey in the clinic containing questions on sociodemographic, disease and treatment characteristics. Approximately 1 month later, participants were mailed a second paper and pencil survey which contained questions about whether they had sought a second opinion and their motivation for doing so. Non-responders were followed up by letter at 3 and 6 weeks. Results: Of 823 patients screened for eligibility, 698 eligible patients, 612 provided consent. Of those who consented, 355 completed both the initial survey and the second survey and were included in the analyses. Of the 57 patients who sought a second opinion, the most frequent reasons given for doing so were the need for reassurance (49.1%) and the need to consider the range of treatment options (41.8%). Of the 297 (83.6%) participants who did not seek a second opinion, the main reason was confidence in the first doctor (88.7%). Only 3.1% patients did not know that they could ask for a second opinion. Occasionally the doctor will initiate the referral for a second opinion. Conclusions: Our study suggests that a minority of cancer patients seek a second opinion at some phase during their care. Most did so for reassurance or to ensure that they had covered all of the treatment options and not because of discomfort or distrust of their treating doctor. Few patients reported a lack of awareness of second opinions. This suggests that second opinions form part of a patient-centred approach to information provision about care options. Whether the second opinion improves the quality of care or indeed outcomes has been difficult to demonstrate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Law purports to regulate end-of-life care but its role in decision-making by doctors is not clear. This paper, which is part of a three-year study into the role of law in medical practice at the end of life, investigates whether law affects doctors' decision-making. In particular, it considers whether the fact that the law differs across Australia's three largest states - New South Wales (NSW), Victoria and Queensland - leads to doctors making different decisions about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity. Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey of the seven specialties most likely to be involved in end-of-life care in the acute setting was conducted between 18 July 2012 and 31 January 2013. The sample comprised all medical specialists in emergency medicine, geriatric medicine, intensive care, medical oncology, palliative medicine, renal medicine and respiratory medicine on the AMPCo Direct database in those three Australian states. The survey measured medical specialists' level of legal compliance, and reasons for their decisions, concerning the withholding or withdrawal of lifesustaining treatment. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine predictors of legal compliance. Linear regression was used to examine associations between the decision about life-sustaining treatment and the relevance of factors involved in making these decisions, as well as state differences in these associations. Results: Response rate was 32% (867/2702). A majority of respondents in each state said that they would provide treatment in a hypothetical scenario, despite an advance directive refusing it: 72% in NSW and Queensland; 63% in Victoria. After applying differences in state law, 72% of Queensland doctors answered in accordance with local law, compared with 37% in Victoria and 28% in NSW (p < 0.001). Doctors reported broadly the same decision-making approach despite differences in local law. Conclusions: Law appears to play a limited role in medical decision-making at the end of life with doctors prioritising patient-related clinical and ethical considerations. Different legal frameworks in the three states examined did not lead to different decisions about providing treatment. More education is needed about law and its role in this area, particularly where law is inconsistent with traditional practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]