While effective general practitioner (GP)-patient communication is required for the provision of good palliative care, barriers and facilitators for this communication are largely unknown. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators for GP-patient communication in palliative care. In a systematic review seven computerized databases were searched to find empirical studies on GP-patient communication in palliative care. Fifteen qualitative studies and seven quantitative questionnaire studies were included. The main perceived barriers were GPs' lack of availability, and patients' and GPs' ambivalence to discuss 'bad prognosis'. Main perceived facilitators were GPs being available, initiating discussion about several end-of-life issues and anticipating various scenarios. Lack of availability and failure to discuss former mistakes appear to be blind spots of GPs. GPs should be more forthcoming to initiate discussions with palliative care patients about prognosis and end-of-life issues. Empirical studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of the perceived barriers and facilitators.

Context. Advance care planning (ACP) is an important part of patient-centered palliative care. There have been few nationwide studies of ACP, especially in Europe.Objectives. To investigate the prevalence and characteristics of ACP in two European countries and identify the associated factors.Methods. A mortality follow-back study was undertaken in 2007 via representative nationwide Sentinel Networks of general practitioners (GPs) in Belgium and The Netherlands using similar standardized procedures. All GPs reported on each non-suddenly deceased patient in their practice. Our main outcome measure was whether or not ACP, that is, an agreement for medical treatment and/or medical decisions in the last phase of life in the case of the patient losing competence, was present.Results. Among 1072 non-sudden deaths, ACP was done with 34% of patients and most often related to the forgoing of potential life-prolonging treatments in general (24%). In 8% of cases, ACP was made in consultation with the patient and in writing. In 23% of cases, care was planned with the patient's family only. Multivariate analysis revealed that ACP was more often made with patients if they were capable of decision making during the last three days of life (odds ratio [OR] 3.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4e6.1), received treatment aimed at palliation in the last week (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.6e4.2), had contact with a GP in the last week (OR 2.71; 95% CI 1.7e4.1), died of cancer (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.1e2.0), or died at home (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.5e3.0).

ObjectivesPalliative sedation is a highly debated medical practice, particularly regarding its proper use in end-of-life care. Worldwide, guidelines are used to standardise care and regulate this practice. In this review, we identify and compare national/regional clinical practice guidelines on palliative sedation against the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) palliative sedation Framework and assess the developmental quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.MethodsUsing the PRISMA criteria, we searched multiple databases (PubMed, CancerLit, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence and Google Scholar) for relevant guidelines, and selected those written in English, Dutch and Italian; published between January 2000 and March 2016.ResultsOf 264 hits, 13 guidelines—Belgium, Canada (3), Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Europe, and USA (2) were selected. 8 contained at least 9/10 recommendations published in the EAPC Framework; 9 recommended ‘pre-emptive discussion of the potential role of sedation in end-of-life care’; 9 recommended ‘nutrition/hydration while performing sedation’ and 8 acknowledged the need to ‘care for the medical team’. There were striking differences in terminologies used and in life expectancy preceding the practice. Selected guidelines were conceptually similar, comparing closely to the EAPC Framework recommendations, albeit with notable variations.ConclusionsBased on AGREE II, 3 guidelines achieved top scores and could therefore be recommended for use in this context. Also, domains ‘scope and purpose’ and ‘editorial independence’ ranked highest and lowest, respectively—underscoring the importance of good reportage at the developmental stage.

Multiple transitions between care settings in the last phase of life could jeopardize continuity of care and overall end-of-life patient care. Using a mortality follow-back study, we examined the nature and prevalence of transitions between Dutch care settings in the last 3 months of life, and identified potential characteristics associated with them. During the 2-year study period, 690 registered patients died 'totally expectedly and non-suddenly'. These made 709 transitions in the last 3 months, which involved a hospital two times out of three, and covered 43 distinct care trajectories. The most frequent trajectory was home-to-hospital (48%). Forty-six percent experienced one or more transitions in their last month of life. Male gender, multi-morbidities, and absence of GP awareness of a patient's wish for place of death were associated with having a transition in the last 30 days of life; age of < or = 85 years, having an infection and the absence of a palliative-centred treatment goal were associated with terminal hospitalization for > or = 7 days. Although the majority of the 'totally expected and non-sudden' deaths occurred at home, transitions to hospitals were relatively frequent. To minimize abrupt or frequent transitions just before death, timely recognition of the palliative phase of dying is important.

To improve the quality of end-of-life care, general practitioner (GP) awareness of where their patients prefer to die is important. To examine GP awareness of patients' preferred place of death (POD), associated patient- and care-related characteristics, and the congruence between preferred and actual POD in The Netherlands, a mortality follow-back study was conducted between January 2005 and December 2006. Standardized registration forms were used to collect data on all nonsudden deaths (n=637) by means of the Dutch Sentinel Network, a nationally representative network of general practices. Forty-six percent of patients had GPs who were not aware of their preferred POD. Of those whose GPs were aware, 88% had preferred to die in a private or care home, 10% in a hospice or palliative care unit, and 2% in a hospital. GPs were informed by the patients themselves in 84% of cases. Having financial status "above average," a life-prolongation or palliative care goal, and using specialist palliative care services were associated with higher GP-awareness odds. Four-fifth of patients with known preferred POD died there. There is a potential for improving GP awareness of patients' preferred POD. Such awareness is enhanced when palliation is an active part of end-of-life care. The hospital is the POD least preferred by dying patients.