Search

Aims It is recommended that patients and clinicians discuss end-of-life deactivation of their implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) prior to device implantation and throughout the illness trajectory to facilitate shared decision-making. However, such discussions rarely occur, and little is known about patients' openness to this discussion. The purpose of this study was to explore factors associated with patients' openness to discussing end-of-life ICD deactivation with clinicians. Methods and results This cross-sectional study recruited 293 patients with an ICD from outpatient clinics in the USA, Australia, and South Korea. Patients were classified into an open or resistant group based on their desire to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore factors related to patients' openness to this discussion. About half of the participants (57.7%) were open to discussing such issues with their clinicians. Factors related to patients' openness to discussing device deactivation at end of life were living with someone, not having severe comorbid conditions (cancer and/or chronic kidney disease), greater ICD knowledge, and more experience discussing end-of-life issues with clinicians (odds ratio: 0.479, 0.382, 1.172, 1.332, respectively). Conclusion Approximately half of the ICD recipients were reluctant to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Unmodifiable factors were their living arrangement and severe comorbidity. ICD knowledge and prior experience discussing end-of-life issues were potentially modifiable factors in the future. These factors should be addressed when assessing patients' readiness for a shared discussion about device deactivation at end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Dietitians in countries across the world have been implementing the Nutrition Care Process (NCP) and Terminology (NCPT) during the past decade. The implementation process has been evaluated in specific countries and in smaller international studies; however, no large international study comparing implementation between countries has been completed. Objective The aim of this study was to describe and compare the level of NCP/NCPT implementation across 10 countries. Methods A previously tested web-based survey was completed in 2017 by 6,719 dietitians across 10 countries. Participants were recruited through e-mail lists, e-newsletters, and social media groups for dietitians. Nondietitians were excluded through screening questions and targeted dissemination channels. Main outcome measures and statistical analysis The main outcome of interest was the level of implementation of each of the four NCP steps. Differences in implementation between the NCP (process) and NCPT (terminology) were also measured. Differences between groups were assessed using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. Multiple linear regression was used to assess relationships between the main outcomes and respondent demographic information. Results Australia, New Zealand, and the United States had higher implementation rates compared with other countries surveyed. Awareness of the NCP was high in most countries (>90%) but lower in Greece (50%). All countries had a higher implementation level of the NCP (process) compared with the NCPT (terminology). Dietitians working with inpatients reported the highest implementation levels while those working in public health reported the lowest. Conclusions Dietitians in countries with more experience in NCP/NCPT implementation and a clear implementation strategy had higher levels of implementation. To achieve a successful NCP/NCPT implementation among dietitians, there is a need to promote the value of a standardized dietetic language together with the more easily implemented process. There is also a need to promote NCP/NCPT for all areas of practice, and develop strategic plans for implementation of the NCP and NCPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Around the world, adults with serious illnesses or chronic conditions account for a disproportionate share of national health care spending. We surveyed patients with complex care needs in eleven countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and found that in all of them, care is often poorly coordinated. However, adults seen at primary practices with attributes of a patient-centered medical home-where clinicians are accessible, know patients' medical history, and help coordinate care-gave higher ratings to the care they received and were less likely to experience coordination gaps or report medical errors. Throughout the survey, patients in Switzerland and the United Kingdom reported significantly more positive experiences than did patients in the other countries surveyed. Reported improvements in the United Kingdom tracked with recent reforms there in health care delivery. Patients in the United States reported difficulty paying medical bills and forgoing care because of costs. Our study indicates a need for improvement in all countries through redesigning primary care, developing care teams accountable across sites of care, and managing transitions and medications well. The United States in particular has opportunities to learn from diverse payment innovations and care redesign efforts under way in the other study countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]