Search

Objectives In the Netherlands, a case of euthanasia of an incompetent patient with dementia and an advance euthanasia directive (AED) caused great societal unrest and led to a petition signed by more than 450 physicians. In this paper, we investigate these physicians' reasons and underlying motives for supporting the 'no sneaky euthanasia' petition, with the aim of gaining insight into the dilemmas experienced and to map out topics in need of further guidance. Methods Twelve in-depth interviews were conducted with physicians recruited via the webpage 'no sneaky euthanasia'. General topics discussed were: reasons for signing the petition, the possibilities of euthanasia in incompetent patients and views on good end-of-life care. Data were interpreted using thematic content analysis and the framework method. Results Reasons for supporting the petition are dilemmas concerning 'sneaky euthanasia', the over-simplified societal debate, physicians' personal moral boundaries and the growing pressure on physicians. Analysis revealed three underlying motives: aspects of handling a euthanasia request based on an AED, good end-of-life care and the doctor as a human being. Conclusions Although one of the main reasons for participants to support the petition was the opposition to 'sneaky euthanasia', our results show a broader scope of reasons. This includes their experience of growing pressure to comply with AEDs, forcing them to cross personal boundaries. The underlying motives are related to moral dilemmas around patient autonomy emerging in cases of decision-making disabilities in advanced dementia. To avoid uncertainty regarding patients' wishes, physicians express their need for reciprocal communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Agitation is a common challenging behaviour in dementia with a negative influence on patient's quality of life and a high caregiver burden. Treatment is often difficult. Current guidelines recommend restrictive use of psychotropic drug treatment, but guideline recommendations do not always suffice. Objective To explore how physicians decide on psychotropic drug treatment for agitated behaviour in dementia when the guideline prescribing recommendations are not sufficient. Methods We conducted five online focus groups with a total of 22 elderly care physicians, five geriatricians and four old-age psychiatrists, in The Netherlands. The focus groups were thematically analysed. Results We identified five main themes. Transcending these themes, in each of the focus groups physicians stated that there is 'not one size that fits all'. The five themes reflect physicians' considerations when deciding on psychotropic drug treatment outside the guideline prescribing recommendations for agitated behaviour in dementia: (1) 'reanalysis of problem and cause', (2) 'hypothesis of underlying cause and treatment goal', (3) 'considerations regarding drug choice', (4) 'trial and error' and (5) 'last resort: sedation'. Conclusion When guideline prescribing recommendations do not suffice, physicians start with reanalysing potential underlying causes. They try to substantiate and justify medication choices as best as they can with a hypothesis of underlying causes or treatment goal, using other guidelines, and applying personalised psychotropic drug treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We studied the efficacy of biannual structured medication reviews to improve the appropriateness of psychotropic drug (PD) prescriptions for neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in nursing home patients with dementia. Study Design and Setting: In this randomised controlled trial, the intervention encompassed a structured multidisciplinary medication review by physician, pharmacist and nurse. During this 18-month study, the patient's medical files were assessed every 6 months. The primary outcome was the appropriateness of PD prescriptions defined by the Appropriate Psychotropic drug use In Dementia (APID) index sum score, lower scores indicating more appropriate use. Results: At baseline, 380 patients were included, of which 222 were randomised to the intervention group. Compared to the control group, the APID index sum score in the intervention group improved significantly for all PD prescriptions (-5.28, P = 0.005). Conclusion: We advise the implementation of a structured, repeated medication review with the essential roles of pharmacist, physician and nurse, into daily practice. This work was supported and funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Netherlands Trial Register (NTR3569). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]