While effective general practitioner (GP)-patient communication is required for the provision of good palliative care, barriers and facilitators for this communication are largely unknown. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators for GP-patient communication in palliative care. In a systematic review seven computerized databases were searched to find empirical studies on GP-patient communication in palliative care. Fifteen qualitative studies and seven quantitative questionnaire studies were included. The main perceived barriers were GPs' lack of availability, and patients' and GPs' ambivalence to discuss 'bad prognosis'. Main perceived facilitators were GPs being available, initiating discussion about several end-of-life issues and anticipating various scenarios. Lack of availability and failure to discuss former mistakes appear to be blind spots of GPs. GPs should be more forthcoming to initiate discussions with palliative care patients about prognosis and end-of-life issues. Empirical studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of the perceived barriers and facilitators.

No abstract

Background:Although communicating effectively with patients receiving palliative care can be difficult, it may contribute to maintaining or enhancing patients’ quality of life. Little is known about the effect of training general practitioners in palliative care–specific communication. We hypothesized that palliative care patients of general practitioners exposed to the ‘Availability, Current issues and Anticipation’ communication training programme would report better outcomes than patients of control general practitioners.Aim:To evaluate the effectiveness of the Availability, Current issues and Anticipation training programme for general practitioners on patient-reported outcomes.Design:In a controlled trial, general practitioners followed the Availability, Current issues and Anticipation programme or were part of the control group. Patients receiving palliative care of participating general practitioners completed the Palliative Care Outcome Scale, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative, the Rest & Peace Scale, the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire–III and the Availability, Current issues and Anticipation Scale, at baseline and 12 months follow-up. We analysed differences between groups using linear mixed models. Trial registration: ISRCTN56722368.Setting/participants:General practitioners who attended a 2-year Palliative Care Training Course in the Netherlands.Results:Questionnaire data were available for 145 patients (89 in intervention and 56 in control group). We found no significant differences over time between the intervention and control groups in any of the five outcome measures. Ceiling effects were observed for the Rest & Peace Scale, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire–III and Availability, Current issues and Anticipation Scale.Conclusion:General practitioner participation in the Availability, Current issues and Anticipation training programme did not have a measurable effect on any of the outcomes investigated. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with general practitioner care, regardless of group assignment. Future research might focus on general practitioners without special interest in palliative care.

The risk approach, used to select women with high risk pregnancies should be used more extensively and as unexpected complications at the local center occur, basic facilities to deal with those problems should be made available at this level.

BackgroundCommunicating effectively with palliative care patients has been acknowledged to be somewhat difficult, but little is known about the effect that training general practitioners (GPs) in specific elements of communication in palliative care might have. We hypothesized that GPs exposed to a new training programme in GP-patient communication in palliative care focusing on availability of the GP for the patient, current issues the GP should discuss with the patient and anticipation by the GP of various scenarios (ACA), would discuss more issues and become more skilled in their communication with palliative care patients.MethodsIn this controlled trial among GPs who attended a two-year Palliative Care Peer Group Training Course in the Netherlands only intervention GPs received the ACA training programme. To evaluate the effect of the programme a content analysis (Roter Interaction Analysis System) was performed of one videotaped 15-minute consultation of each GP with a simulated palliative care patient conducted at baseline, and one at 12 months follow-up. Both how the GP communicated with the patient (‘availability’) and the number of current and anticipated issues the GP discussed with the patient were measured quantitatively. We used linear mixed models and logistic regression models to evaluate between-group differences over time.ResultsSixty-two GPs were assigned to the intervention and 64 to the control group. We found no effect of the ACA training programme on how the GPs communicated with the patient or on the number of issues discussed by GPs with the patient. The total number of issues discussed by the GPs was eight out of 13 before and after the training in both groups.ConclusionThe ACA training programme did not influence how the GPs communicated with the simulated palliative care patient or the number of issues discussed by the GPs in this trial. Further research should evaluate whether this training programme is effective for GPs who do not have a special interest in palliative care and whether studies using outcomes at patient level can provide more insight into the effectiveness of the ACA training programme.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN56722368