GPs usually care for their patients for an extended period of time, therefore, requests to not only discontinue a patient’s treatment but to assist a patient in a suicide are likely to create intensely stressful situations for physicians. However, in order to ensure the best patient care possible, the competent communication about the option of physician assisted suicide (PAS) as well as the assessment of the origin and sincerity of the request are very important. This is especially true, since patients’ requests for PAS can also be an indicator for unmet needs or concerns. Twenty-three qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to in-depth explore this multifaceted, complex topic while enabling GPs to express possible difficulties when being asked for assistance. The analysis of the gathered data shows three main themes why GPs may find it difficult to professionally communicate about PAS: concerns for their own psychological well-being, conflicting personal values or their understanding of their professional role. In the discussion part of this paper we re-assess these different themes in order to ethically discuss and analyse how potential barriers to professional communication concerning PAS could be overcome.

BackgroundIdentifying essential competencies in end-of-life care, as well as general practitioners’ (GPs) confidence in these competencies, is essential to guide training and quality improvement efforts in this domain.AimTo determine which competencies in end-of-life care are considered important by GPs, to assess GPs’ confidence in these competencies in a European context and their reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist.Design and SettingCross-sectional postal survey involving a stratified random sample of 2000 GPs in Switzerland in 2014.MethodSurvey development was informed by a previous qualitative exploration of relevant end-of-life GP competencies. Main outcome measures were GPs’ assessment of the importance of and confidence in 18 attributes of end-of-life care competencies, and reasons for transferring care of terminally-ill patients to a specialist. GP characteristics associated with main outcome measures were tested using multivariate regression models.ResultsThe response rate was 31%. Ninety-nine percent of GPs considered the recognition and treatment of pain as important, 86% felt confident about it. Few GPs felt confident in cultural (16%), spiritual (38%) and legal end-of-life competencies such as responding to patients seeking assisted suicide (35%) although more than half of the respondents regarded these competencies as important. Most frequent reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist were lack of time (30%), better training of specialists (23%) and end-of-life care being incompatible with other duties (19%). In multiple regression analyses, confidence in end-of-life care was positively associated with GPs’ age, practice size, home visits and palliative training.ConclusionsGPs considered non-somatic competencies (such as spiritual, cultural, ethical and legal aspects) nearly as important as pain and symptom control. Yet, few GPs felt confident in these non-somatic competencies. These findings should inform training and quality improvement efforts in this domain, in particular for younger, less experienced GPs.

The distinct approaches, perspectives and rationales show that there is no well-defined or "right" moment. However, participants often associated advance directives with death. This link caused discomfort and uncertainty, which led to hesitation and delay on the part of general practitioners. Therefore we recommend further training on how to professionally initiate a conversation about advance directives. Furthermore, based on our results and experience, we recommend an early approach with healthy patients paired with later regular updates as it seems to be the most effective way to inform patients about their end-of-life care options.

The majority of 164 patients who presented with acutely and severely elevated blood pressure (BP >180 +/or >110 mm Hg) to their GPs was asymptomatic, had pre-existing hypertension and was managed in GP's office unless a hypertensive emergency was present. At three month follow-up mean systolic BP was still above target values.

General practitioners (GPs) play a key role in the timely diagnosis of dementia and also in advance care planning (ACP). They often have known patients and their families for decades and are familiar with their values and treatment preferences; they are, therefore, in a position to initiate the ACP process even before the appearance of the first symptoms of dementia and certainly following disclosure of the diagnosis. To do so, they should recognise whether patients are receptive to an ACP consultation or whether they might reject it for personal, social or cultural reasons. Under no circumstances should the patient or their family be coerced into making these provisions. In most countries, the current framework does not provide enough time and money for GPs to carry out actual ACP consultations completely on their own. There is evidence that specially trained health professionals are able to more effectively discuss treatment goals and limits of life-prolonging measures than GPs who are well acquainted with their patients. Consequently, we suggest that it will be the GPs' task to seize the right moment for starting an ACP process, to raise awareness of patients and their relatives about ACP, to test the patient's decision-making capacity and, finally, to involve appropriately trained healthcare professionals in the actual ACP consultation process. Care should be taken that these professionals delivering timeintensive ACP consultations are not only able to reflect on the patient's values but are also familiar with the course of the disease, the expected complications and the decisions that can be anticipated. The GP will ensure an active exchange with the ACP professional and should have access to the documentation drawn up in the ACP consultation process (treatment plan and advance directive including instructions for medical emergencies) as soon as possible. GPs as coordinators of healthcare provision should document appropriately all specialists involved in the care and ensure that treatment decisions are implemented in accordance with the patient's preferences for future care or the presumed will of the patient.

No abstract

Background Dementia is often underdiagnosed in general practice, which may be based on general practitioners’ (GPs’) knowledge and emotional factors as well as external problems. This study aimed to describe GPs’ attitudes toward early diagnosis of dementia. Methods Cross-sectional postal survey in Switzerland in 2017. Members of the Swiss Association of General Practitioners ( N = 4460) were asked to participate in the survey. The questionnaire assessed attitudes, enablers and barriers to early dementia diagnosis and post-diagnostic intervention strategies. Exploratory factor analysis and linear regression were used. Results The survey response rate was 21%. 85% of GPs agreed with enablers of early dementia recognition (e.g. “Plan for the future, organize support and care”, “Minimize the strain and insecurity of patients and their informal family caregivers”). On the other hand, 15% of respondents perceived barriers towards early dementia recognition (e.g. “Time constraints in carrying out the necessary procedures to diagnose dementia”). GPs who were more likely to agree with barriers would less often counsel family members (β = − 0.05, 95% CI = − 0.09 - -0.02) or test fitness to drive (β = − 0.05, 95% CI = − 0.09 - -0.02), and more often choose a watchful waiting strategy (β = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.02–0.09). Conclusions The attitude of the majority of GPs is not characterized by diagnostic and therapeutic nihilism. However, negative attitudes were associated with sub-optimal management after the diagnosis. Thus, health systems are required to critically examine the use of available resources allowing GPs to look after patients and their relatives in a holistic way. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-0956-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The consistent use of evidence-based pharmacotherapy 6 and 12 months after myocardial infarction was adequate. Three out of four patients were still on recommended SP medication after 1 year of follow-up. Two-thirds of medication discontinuations were initiated by GPs, predominantly because of side effects.