The presence of several concurrent disabilities, some significantly associated with high perceived physical and psychological impact, in the majority of PwMS in outpatient clinics highlights the importance to identify disabilities, in particular fatigue and depressed mood, in order to supply health care interventions aiming to improve the life situation of PwMS.

BackgroundDespite complex illness trajectories and a high symptom burden, palliative care has been sub-optimal for patients with end-stage kidney disease and hemodialysis treatment who have a high rate of hospitalization and intensive care towards end of life. There is a growing awareness that further development of palliative care is required to meet the needs of these patients and their family members. In this process, it is important to explore healthcare professionals’ views on provision of care. The aim of this study was therefore to describe nurses’ and physicians’ perspectives on end-of-life and palliative care of patients treated with maintenance hemodialysis.MethodsFour focus group interviews were conducted with renal nurses (17) and physicians (5) in Sweden. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze data.ResultsParticipants were committed to giving the best possible care to their patients, but there were challenges and barriers to providing quality palliative care in nephrology settings. Professionals described palliative care as end-of-life care associated with hemodialysis withdrawal or palliative dialysis, but also identified care needs and possibilities that are in line with an earlier integrated palliative approach. This was perceived as complex from an organizational point of view. Participants identified challenges related to coordination of care and different perspectives on care responsibilities that impacted symptom management and patients’ quality of life. Communication issues relating to the provision of palliative care were revealed where the hemodialysis setting was regarded as an impediment, and personal and professional experiences, beliefs and knowledge were considered of major importance.ConclusionsNurses and physicians identified a need for the improvement of both late and earlier palliative care approaches. The results highlighted a requirement for and possibilities of training, counselling and support of health care professionals in the dialysis context. Further, multi-professional palliative care collaborations should be developed to improve the coordination and organization of end-of-life and palliative care of patients and their family members. A climate allowing conversations about advance care planning throughout the illness trajectory may facilitate the gradual integration of palliative care alongside life-prolonging treatment for improved support of patients and families.

Background: Nurses and physicians in nephrology settings provide care for patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis treatment along a complex illness trajectory. Aim: The aim was to explore physicians’ and nurses’ perspectives on the trajectories toward the end of life involving decisions regarding hemodialysis withdrawal for patients with end-stage kidney disease. Research design and participants: A qualitative research approach was used. Four mixed focus group interviews were conducted with renal physicians (5) and nurses (17) in Sweden. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse data. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval was obtained (Dnr 2014/304-31). Findings and discussion: Findings illuminated multi-faceted, intertwined processes encompassing healthcare professionals, patients, and family members. The analysis resulted in four themes: Complexities of initiating end-of-life conversations, Genuine attentiveness to the patient’s decision-making process, The challenge awaiting the family members’ processes, and Negotiating different professional responsibilities. Findings showed complexities and challenges when striving to provide good, ethical care which are related to beneficence, nonmaleficence, and self-determination, and which can give rise to moral distress. Conclusion: There are ethical challenges and strains in the dialysis context that healthcare professionals may not always be prepared for. Supporting healthcare professionals in not allowing complexities to hinder the patient’s possibilities for shared decision-making seems important. An open and continual communication, including family meetings, from dialysis initiation could serve to make conversations involving decisions about hemodialysis withdrawal a more natural routine, as well as build up a relationship of trust necessary for the advance care planning about the end of life. Healthcare professionals should also receive support in ethical reasoning to meet these challenges and handle potential moral distress in the dialysis context.

Even if death is expected, most patients dying with ESKD had unmet palliative care needs regarding symptom management, advance care planning, and bereavement support.

The principle of self-determination plays a crucial role in contemporary clinical ethics. Somewhat simplified, it states that it is ultimately the patient who should decide whether or not to accept suggested treatment or care. Although the principle is much discussed in the academic literature, one important aspect has been neglected, namely the fact that real-world decision making is temporally extended, in the sense that it generally takes some time from the point at which the physician (or other health care professional) determines that there is a decision to be made and that the patient is capable of making it, to the point at which the patient is actually asked for his or her view. This article asks under what circumstances, if any, temporising—waiting to pose a certain treatment question to a patient judged to have decision-making capacity—is compatible with the principle of self-determination.

IntroductionThe surprise question (SQ) “Would I be surprised if this patient died within the next xx months” can be used by different professions to foresee the need of serious illness conversations in patients approaching end of life. However, little is known about the different perspectives of nurses and physicians in responses to the SQ and factors influencing their appraisals. The aim was to explore nurses' and physicians' responses to the SQ regarding patients on hemodialysis, and to investigate how these answers were associated with patient clinical characteristics.MethodsThis comparative cross‐sectional study included 361 patients for whom 112 nurses and 15 physicians responded to the SQ regarding 6 and 12 months. Patient characteristics, performance status, and comorbidities were obtained. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the interrater agreement between nurses and physicians in their responses to the SQ and multivariable logistic regression was applied to reveal the independent association to patient clinical characteristics.FindingsProportions of nurses and physicians responding to the SQ with “no, not surprised” was similar regarding 6 and 12 months. However, there was a substantial difference concerning which specific patient the nurses and physicians responded “no, not surprised”, within 6 (κ = 0.366, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.288–0.474) and 12 months (κ = 0.379, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.281–0.477). There were also differences in the patient clinical characteristics associated with nurses' and physicians' responses to the SQ.DiscussionNurses and physicians have different perspectives in their appraisal when responding to the SQ for patients on hemodialysis. This may reinforce the need for communication and discussion between nurses and physicians to identify the need of serious illness conversations in patients approaching the end of life, in order to adapt hemodialysis care to patient preferences and needs.

No abstract