Search

Introduction Advance care planning (ACP) aims to create conditions for more person-centred care. We aimed to explore variations in person-centred care discussions and treatment-centred care discussions within ACP conversations in the Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning (MUTUAL) intervention and how person-centred care discussions could be encouraged. The MUTUAL intervention consists of the following: (i) timely patient selection, (ii) the patient and healthcare professionals preparing for the conversation, (iii) a scripted ACP conversation in a multidisciplinary setting and (iv) documentation. Methods We conducted a narrative analysis of ACP conversations. A narrative summary template was created and used to analyse 18 audio-recordings. Results We noticed variations in person-centred and treatment-centred focus within the ACP conversations. We identified three important strategies that facilitated person-centred care discussions within ACP conversations. First, healthcare professionals' acceptance that ACP is an individual process. We believe it is important that healthcare professionals recognise and accept where the patient is in his or her individual ACP process; not making decisions right away can also be part of a decisional process. Secondly, exploring the underlying motivation for treatment wishes can give insights into patient's wishes, values and needs. Lastly, healthcare professionals who demonstrated an adaptive, curious and engaged attitude throughout the ACP process achieved more person-centred ACP conversations. This coincided with elaborating on the patient's emotions, fears and worries. Conclusion Person-centred and treatment-centred focus varied within the ACP conversations in the MUTUAL intervention. Certain strategies by healthcare professionals facilitated a more person-centred focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palliative sedation is a medical intervention to manage distress in dying patients, by reducing consciousness when symptom-directed therapies fail. Continuous deep sedation is ethically sensitive because it may shorten life and completely prevents communication. But sedation short of this is also common. There has been a steady increase in the use of sedation over recent decades. Sedation may have become a means to die while sleeping, rather than a method of last resort to alleviate suffering. Sedation may be requested or expected by patients, families or staff. The need for sedation may be being interpreted more loosely. The acceptance of a 'tolerable amount of discomfort' may have lost ground to a desire to get the final phase over with quickly. Sedation is not always a bad thing. Medical care is otherwise unable to completely control all distressing symptoms in every patient. Sedation may result from other necessary symptom control drugs. Dying when sedated can be seen by as 'peaceful'. We feel it is necessary, however, to highlight three caveats: the need to manage expectations, the cost in terms of loss of communication, and the grey area between continuous deep sedation and euthanasia. We conclude that there may be good grounds for sedation in palliative care, and in some cases, continuous deep sedation may be used as a last resort. But the criteria of necessary and proportionate drug treatment should remain. The normalisation of sedation into dying while sleeping should be resisted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has particularly adversely affected older people with frailty and functional dependency. Essential regular contact with care staff has been evidenced as an important source of infection for this group. Vaccinating care staff can reduce the incidence, duration and severity of infection, preventing onward transmission to older people and minimising the harm associated with discontinuity caused by staff absence. Voluntary vaccination programmes for staff are more likely to be effective when associated with information and education, community engagement and financial incentives, but programmes using all of these approaches have failed to establish consistently high vaccination rates among care staff during the pandemic. Mandatory vaccination, proposed as a solution in some countries, can increase vaccination rates. It is only ethical if a vaccine is effective and cost-effective, the risk associated with vaccinating care workers is proportionate to the risk reduction achieved through vaccination, and where all efforts to encourage voluntary vaccination have been exhausted. Even when these conditions have been met, careful attention is required to ensure that the penalties associated with conscientious objection are proportionate and to ensure that implementation is equitable in a way that does not disadvantage particular groups of staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The precautionary principle is often invoked in relation to pregnant women and may be one of the underlying reasons for their continuous underrepresentation in clinical research. The principle is appealing, because potential fetal harm as a result of research participation is considered to be serious and irreversible. In our paper, we explore through conceptual analysis whether and if so how the precautionary principle should apply to pregnant women. We argue that the principle is a decision-making strategy underlying risk-benefit decisions in clinical research, which can be applied to pregnant women. However, the current application is a strong one, leading to the promotion of absolute exclusion or, less often, absolute inclusion of pregnant women. In order to change this paralyzing situation, a shift toward weak precautionary thinking is necessary. Instead of automatic extreme precaution, a balance will be found between harms and potential benefits of including pregnant women in clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a viable alternative to maintenance dialysis for selected older patients to treat end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). This systematic review compares both treatment pathways on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms, which are major outcomes for patients and clinicians when deciding on preferred treatment. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus and PsycINFO from inception to 1 October 2019 for studies comparing patient-reported HRQoL outcomes or symptoms between patients who chose either CC or dialysis for ESKD. Results Eleven observational cohort studies were identified comprising 1718 patients overall. There were no randomized controlled trials. Studies were susceptible to selection bias and confounding. In most studies, patients who chose CC were older and had more comorbidities and worse functional status than patients who chose dialysis. Results were broadly consistent across studies, despite considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Patient-reported physical health outcomes and symptoms appeared to be worse in patients who chose CC compared with patients who chose dialysis but had not yet started, but similar compared with patients on dialysis. Mental health outcomes were similar between patients who chose CC or dialysis, including before and after dialysis start. In patients who chose dialysis, the burden of kidney disease and impact on daily life increased after dialysis start. Conclusions The available data, while heterogeneous, suggest that in selected older patients, CC has the potential to achieve similar HRQoL and symptoms compared with a dialysis pathway. High-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these provisional findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context In some cases, physicians estimate that continuous sedation until death may have a life-shortening effect. The accuracy of these estimations can be questioned. Aim The aim of this study is to compare two approaches to estimate the potential life-shortening effect of continuous sedation until death. Methods In 2008, 370 Dutch physicians filled out a questionnaire and reported on their last patient who received continuous sedation until death. The potential life-shortening effect of continuous sedation was estimated through a direct approach (question: Did continuous sedation, according to your estimation, hasten the patient's death? If yes: by how much time?) and an indirect approach (estimated life expectancy minus duration of sedation). The intrarater agreement between both approaches was determined with a weighted κ. Results According to the direct approach, sedation might have had a life-shortening effect in 51% of the cases and according to the indirect approach in 84%. The intrarater agreement between both approaches was fair (weighted κ=0.38). In 10% of all cases, the direct approach yielded higher estimates of the extent to which life had been shortened; in 58% of the cases, the indirect approach yielded higher estimates. Conclusions The results show a discrepancy between different approaches to estimate the potential life-shortening effect of continuous sedation until death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main premise of the Royal Dutch Medical Association's (RDMA) guideline on palliative sedation is that palliative sedation, contrary to euthanasia, is normal medical practice. Although we do not deny the ethical distinctions between euthanasia and palliative sedation, we will critically analyse the guideline's argumentation strategy with which euthanasia is demarcated from palliative sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]