BackgroundThe long-term and often lifelong relationship of general practitioners (GPs) with their patients is considered to make them the ideal initiators of advance care planning (ACP). However, in general the incidence of ACP discussions is low and ACP seems to occur more often for cancer patients than for those with dementia or heart failure.ObjectiveTo identify the barriers, from GPs' perspective, to initiating ACP and to gain insight into any differences in barriers between the trajectories of patients with cancer, heart failure and dementia.MethodFive focus groups were held with GPs (n = 36) in Flanders, Belgium. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the method of constant comparative analysis.ResultsThree types of barriers were distinguished: barriers relating to the GP, to the patient and family and to the health care system. In cancer patients, a GP's lack of knowledge about treatment options and the lack of structural collaboration between the GP and specialist were expressed as barriers. Barriers that occured more often with heart failure and dementia were the lack of GP familiarity with the terminal phase, the lack of key moments to initiate ACP, the patient's lack of awareness of their diagnosis and prognosis and the fact that patients did not often initiate such discussions themselves. The future lack of decision-making capacity of dementia patients was reported by the GPs as a specific barrier for the initiation of ACP.ConclusionThe results of our study contribute to a better understanding of the factors hindering GPs in initiating ACP. Multiple barriers need to be overcome, of which many can be addressed through the development of practical guidelines and educational interventions.

Patients with COPD are underserved in terms of palliative care compared to those with other chronic life-limiting diseases. Awareness of palliative care as an option for patients with COPD needs to increase in palliative care services, physicians and the general public.

The current practice of palliative care in Belgium is far from the presently considered ideal palliative care approaches. Facilitators such as proactive communication and communication tools could contribute to the development of guidelines for family physicians and policymakers in primary care.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of palliative home care support on the quality of care and costs in the last 14 days of life.DesignMatched cohort study using linked administrative databases.SettingAll people who died in Belgium in 2012 (n=107 847).Participants8837 people who received palliative home care support in the last 720 to 15 days of life matched 1:1 by propensity score to 8837 people who received usual care.InterventionReceiving the allowance for palliative home patients, multidisciplinary palliative home care team visit or palliative nurse or physiotherapist visit at home.Main outcome measuresHome death, number of family physician contacts, number of primary caregiver contacts, hospital death, hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, emergency department (ED) admission, diagnostic testing, blood transfusion and surgery. Total inpatient and outpatient costs. All outcomes were measured in the last 14 days of life.ResultsIn the unmatched cohort, 11 149 (13.5%) people received palliative home care support in the last 720 to 15 days of life. After matching, those using palliative home care support had, compared with those who did not, more family physician contacts (mean 3.1 [SD=6.5] vs 0.8 [SD=1.2]), more chance of home death (56.2%vs13.8%; relative risk [RR]=4.08, 95% CI 3.86 to 4.31), lower risk of hospital admission (27.4%vs60.8%; RR=0.45, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.46), ICU admission (18.3%vs40.4%; RR=0.45, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.48) or ED admission (15.2%vs28.1%; RR=0.54, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.57). Mean total costs of care were lower for those using palliative home care support (€3081 [95% CI €3025 to €3136] vs €4698 [95% CI €4610 to €4787]; incremental cost: −€1617 [p<0.001]).ConclusionsPalliative home care support use positively impacts quality of care and reduces total costs of care at the end of life in Belgium. Policy makers and healthcare practitioners should increasingly focus on communicating the existing options for palliative home care support to patients and their caregivers.

Our results help to elucidate the tasks and roles required of FPs to make integration of a palliative care approach into the care continuum possible.

BackgroundMany people who might benefit from specialist palliative care services are not using them.AimWe examined the use of these services and the reasons for not using them in a population in potential need of palliative care.MethodsWe conducted a population-based survey regarding end-of-life care among physicians certifying a large representative sample (n = 6188) of deaths in Flanders, Belgium.ResultsPalliative care services were not used in 79% of cases of people with organ failure, 64% of dementia and 44% of cancer. The most frequently indicated reasons were that 1) existing care already sufficiently addressed palliative and supportive needs (56%), 2) palliative care was not deemed meaningful (26%) and 3) there was insufficient time to initiate palliative care (24%). The reasons differed according to patient characteristics: in people with dementia the consideration of palliative care as not meaningful was more likely to be a reason for not using it; in older people their care needs already being sufficiently addressed was more likely to be a reason. For those patients who were referred the timing of referral varied from a median of six days before death (organ failure) to 16 days (cancer).ConclusionsSpecialist palliative care is not initiated in almost half of the people for whom it could be beneficial, most frequently because physicians deem regular caregivers to be sufficiently skilled in addressing palliative care needs. This would imply that the safeguarding of palliative care skills in this regular ‘general’ care is an essential health policy priority.

No abstract

This study shows large cross-national variations in place of death. These variations may relate to health system-related infrastructures and policies, and differences in cultural values related to place of death, although this needs further investigation. The patterns found in this study can inform the development of paediatric palliative care programs internationally. What is known: • There is a scarcity of population-level studies investigating where children with CCC die in different countries. • Cross-national understanding of place of death provides information to health care systems for providing efficient and equal access to paediatric palliative care. What is new : • There are large cross-national variations in the place of death of children with CCC, with few deathsoccuring at home in some countries whereas hospital deaths are generally most common. • In general, deaths caused by neuromuscular diseases and malignancies occur at home more often thanother CCC.