No abstract

BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) is a continuous, dynamic process of reflection and dialogue between an individual, those close to them and their healthcare professionals, concerning the individual’s preferences and values concerning future treatment and care, including end-of-life care. Despite universal recognition of the importance of ACP for people with dementia, who gradually lose their ability to make informed decisions themselves, ACP still only happens infrequently, and evidence-based recommendations on when and how to perform this complex process are lacking. We aimed to develop evidence-based clinical recommendations to guide professionals across settings in the practical application of ACP in dementia care.MethodsFollowing the Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s procedures, we 1) performed an extensive literature search to identify international guidelines, articles reporting heterogeneous study designs and grey literature, 2) developed recommendations based on the available evidence and expert opinion of the author group, and 3) performed a validation process using written feedback from experts, a survey for end users (healthcare professionals across settings), and two peer-review groups (with geriatricians and general practitioners).ResultsBased on 67 publications and validation from ten experts, 51 end users and two peer-review groups (24 participants) we developed 32 recommendations covering eight domains: initiation of ACP, evaluation of mental capacity, holding ACP conversations, the role and importance of those close to the person with dementia, ACP with people who find it difficult or impossible to communicate verbally, documentation of wishes and preferences, including information transfer, end-of-life decision-making, and preconditions for optimal implementation of ACP. Almost all recommendations received a grading representing low to very low-quality evidence.ConclusionNo high-quality guidelines are available for ACP in dementia care. By combining evidence with expert and user opinions, we have defined a unique set of recommendations for ACP in people living with dementia. These recommendations form a valuable tool for educating healthcare professionals on how to perform ACP across settings.

Many measurement instruments were identified, but most had not yet been adequately evaluated. The evaluation of existing instruments with good content validity should have priority over the development of new instruments.

Nursing staff should be informed of relevant existing legislation and professional guidelines.

BackgroundMaintaining dignity, the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect, is considered as a goal of palliative care. The aim of this study was to analyse the construct of personal dignity and to assess the content validity of the Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI) in people with an advance directive in the Netherlands.MethodsData were collected within the framework of an advance directives cohort study. This cohort study is aiming to get a better insight into how decisions are made at the end of life with regard to advance directives in the Netherlands. One half of the cohort (n = 2404) received an open-ended question concerning factors relevant to dignity. Content labels were assigned to issues mentioned in the responses to the open-ended question. The other half of the cohort (n = 2537) received a written questionnaire including the PDI. The relevance and comprehensiveness of the PDI items were assessed with the COSMIN checklist ('COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments').ResultsThe majority of the PDI items were found to be relevant for the construct to be measured, the study population, and the purpose of the study but the items were not completely comprehensive. The responses to the open-ended question indicated that communication and care-related aspects were also important for dignity.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that the PDI items were relevant for people with an advance directive in the Netherlands. The comprehensiveness of the items can be improved by including items concerning communication and care.

Awareness on the important role nurses have and want to have in ELD should be raised, and taken into account in trainings on end-of-life care for nurses and physicians and development of guidelines for communication about ELD between patients, nursing staff and physicians.

Context. More people are surviving into old age, and chronic diseases tend to become more common with age. Ill health and disability can lead to concerns about loss of personal dignity.Objectives. To investigate whether health status affects the perceptions of factors influencing personal dignity at the end of life, and the relationship between those perceptions and sociodemographic characteristics.Methods. A subsample (n ¼ 2282) of a large advance directives cohort study was used. Three different health status groups (good, moderate, and poor) were defined based on the Euroqol-5D and a question on whether they had an illness. For each health status group, we calculated the percentage of respondents who indicated the extent to which the items of the Patient Dignity Inventory would influence their dignity as (very) large. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate the associations between the perceptions of factors influencing personal dignity and sociodemographics.Results. The percentage of respondents who indicated the factors as having a (very) large influence on dignity at the end of life were not significantly different for the three health status groups, except for three physical items on symptoms, roles, and routines. Those items were significantly more influential on dignity for people with a poor health status. Gender, old age, having a partner, and having a belief or religion that is important to one's life were associated with an understanding of factors influential to dignity.Conclusion. Health status seems only to affect the perceptions of physical factors maintaining dignity at the end of life. This might suggest that the understanding of dignity will not substantially change as health status changes and

BackgroundWith an increasing number of people dying in old age, collaboration between palliative care and geriatric medicine is increasingly being advocated in order to promote better health and health care for the increasing number of older people. The aim of this study is to identify barriers and facilitators and good practice examples of collaboration and integration between palliative care and geriatric medicine from a European perspective.MethodsFour semi-structured group interviews were undertaken with 32 participants from 18 countries worldwide. Participants were both clinicians (geriatricians, GPs, palliative care specialists) and academic researchers. The interviews were transcribed and independent analyses performed by two researchers who then reached consensus.ResultsLimited knowledge and understanding of what the other discipline offers, a lack of common practice and a lack of communication between disciplines and settings were considered as barriers for collaboration between palliative care and geriatric medicine. Multidisciplinary team working, integration, strong leadership and recognition of both disciplines as specialties were considered as facilitators of collaborative working. Whilst there are instances of close clinical working between disciplines, examples of strategic collaboration in education and policy were more limited.ConclusionsImproving knowledge about its principles and acquainting basic palliative care skills appears mandatory for geriatricians and other health care professionals. In addition, establishing more academic chairs is seen as a priority in order to develop more education and development at the intersection of palliative care and geriatric medicine.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-016-0118-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.