Search

Advance statements about medical care have been heralded by some as a solution to the problem of end of life decision making for people not able to participate in discussions about their care. Since death is now most likely to occur at the end of a long life, it is important to understand the views and values which older people express in relation to these. This paper reports on a study which used focus groups to explore older people's views about advance statements and the role these might play in end of life care decisions. Participants were 32 older people or their representatives who belonged to six diverse community groups in Sheffield, UK. Advance statements were understood primarily in terms of their potential to aid personal integrity and to help the families of older people by reducing the perceived 'burden' of their decision making. However, concerns were expressed about the perceived link between advance care statements and euthanasia, their future applicability, and the possibility that preferences for care may change. Participants also reported worries and difficulties related to thinking about and discussing death and dying. Trust between doctor and patient, built up over time, was perceived to be important in creating an environment in which the communication necessary to underpin advance care planning could take place. Lastly, participants did not perceive that during dying they would be ready necessarily to adhere to an advance statement and 'disengage' from their lives. We conclude that, rather than emphasising the completion of advance statements, it may be preferable to conceptualise advance care planning as a process of discussion and review between clinicians, patients and families. Keywords: Advance statements; End-of-life care; Older people; UK

Objective: The objective of this study is to develop an update of the evidence-based guidelines for the management of pain in older people. Design: Review of evidence since 2010 using a systematic and consensus approach is performed. Results: Recognition of the type of pain and routine assessment of pain should inform the use of specific environmental, behavioural and pharmacological interventions. Individualised care plans and analgesic protocols for specific clinical situations, patients and health care settings can be developed from these guidelines. Conclusion: Management of pain must be considered as an important component of the health care provided to all people, regardless of their chronological age or severity of illness. By clearly outlining areas where evidence is not available, these guidelines may also stimulate further research. To use the recommended therapeutic approaches, clinicians must be familiar with adverse effects of treatment and the potential for drug interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on the methodological and ethical issues that were encountered when using focus groups to explore older people's knowledge, beliefs and risk perceptions about the use of innovative health technologies in end of life care. Older people drawn from community organisations in Sheffield, England, took part in discussions about the application of `life prolonging' and `comfort care' technologies during serious illness and impending death. The paper offers a reflective account of the management of recruitment and informed consent, and of the issues that arose when facilitating group discussions of potentially distressing material. It concludes with a brief account of the steps that were taken to enhance the `credibility' of the data. KEY WORDS--focus groups, qualitative research, methodology, end-of-life care, attitudes, research ethics.

With the future focus on palliative and end-of-life care provision in the community, the role of the general practice team and their relationship with specialist palliative care providers is key to responding effectively to the projected increase in palliative care need. Studies have highlighted the potential to improve co-ordination and minimise fragmentation of care for people living with palliative care need through a partnership between generalist services and specialist palliative care. However, to date, the exact nature of this partnership approach has not been well defined and debate exists about how to make such partnerships work successfully. The aim of this study was to explore how general practice and specialist palliative care team (SPCT) members view their relationship in terms of partnership working. Five focus group discussions with general practices and SPCT members ( n = 35) were conducted in 2012 in two different regions of New Zealand and analysed using a general inductive approach. The findings indicate that participants' understanding of partnership working was informed by their identity as a generalist or specialist, their existing rules of engagement and the approach they took towards sustaining the partnership. Considerable commitment to partnership working was shown by all participating teams. However, their working relationship was based primarily on trust and personal liaison, with limited formal systems in place to enable partnership working. Tensions between the cultures of 'generalism' and 'specialism' also provided challenges for those endeavouring to meet palliative care need collaboratively in the community. Further research is required to better understand the factors associated with successful partnership working between general practices and specialist palliative care in order to develop robust strategies to support a more sustainable model of community palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]