No abstract

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.

There are commonalities in the prevalence of problems across cancer and non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for palliative care to be provided irrespective of diagnosis. The methodological heterogeneity across the studies and the lack of non-cancer studies need to be addressed in future research.

Objective The aim of this systematic review is to identify the perceived factors hindering or facilitating GPs in engaging in advance care planning (ACP) with their patients about care at the end of life. Design Studies from 1990 to 2011 were found in four electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO); by contacting first authors of included studies and key experts; and searching through relevant journals and reference lists. Studies were screened, graded for quality, and analysed independently by two authors; those reporting the perception by GPs of barriers and facilitators to engagement in ACP were included. Results Eight qualitative studies and seven cross-sectional studies were included for data extraction. All barriers and facilitators identified were categorized as GP characteristics, perceived patient factors, or health care system characteristics. Stronger evidence was found for the following barriers: lack of skills to deal with patients’ vague requests, difficulties with defining the right moment, the attitude that it is the patient who should initiate ACP, and fear of depriving patients of hope. Stronger evidence was found for the following facilitators: accumulated skills, the ability to foresee health problems in the future, skills to respond to a patient's initiation of ACP, personal convictions about who to involve in ACP, and a longstanding patient–GP relationship and the home setting. Conclusion Initiation of ACP in general practice may be improved by targeting the GPs’ skills, attitudes, and beliefs but changes in health care organization and financing could also contribute.

No abstract

Background:Where people die can influence a number of indicators of the quality of dying. We aimed to describe the place of death of people with cancer and its associations with clinical, socio-demographic and healthcare supply characteristics in 14 countries.Methods:Cross-sectional study using death certificate data for all deaths from cancer (ICD-10 codes C00-C97) in 2008 in Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, England, France, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain (2010), USA (2007) and Wales (N=1 355 910). Multivariable logistic regression analyses evaluated factors associated with home death within countries and differences across countries.Results:Between 12% (South Korea) and 57% (Mexico) of cancer deaths occurred at home; between 26% (Netherlands, New Zealand) and 87% (South Korea) occurred in hospital. The large between-country differences in home or hospital deaths were partly explained by differences in availability of hospital- and long-term care beds and general practitioners. Haematologic rather than solid cancer (odds ratios (ORs) 1.29–3.17) and being married rather than divorced (ORs 1.17–2.54) were most consistently associated with home death across countries.Conclusions:A large country variation in the place of death can partly be explained by countries' healthcare resources. Country-specific choices regarding the organisation of end-of-life cancer care likely explain an additional part. These findings indicate the further challenge to evaluate how different specific policies can influence place of death patterns.

The large differences between countries in and beyond Europe in the place of death of people in potential need of palliative care are not entirely attributable to sociodemographic characteristics, cause of death or availability of healthcare resources, which suggests that countries' palliative and end-of-life care policies may influence where people die.

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.