Multiprofessional Views on Older Patients' Participation in Care Planning Meetings in a Hospital Context

Care planning meetings (CPMs; sometimes referred to as family meetings) for older patients involve group decision-making between the multidisciplinary team, the older person and their family. However, service user participation is challenged by the inequity of knowledge and power between participants, together with organisational and resource pressures for timely discharge. The effective use and perhaps, potential misuse of communication strategies within CPMs is of ethical concern to all participants. Habermas' essential critique of participatory communication provides insight as to how older people's involvement can be either enabled or blocked by healthcare professionals (HCPs) depending on their use of communication strategies. Seven discipline-specific mini-focus groups provided an opportunity for HCPs to reflect on the participation of patients over 65 and their families in CPMs. Findings explore HCPs' understanding of older patients involvement based on key dimensions of communicative participation, namely, mutuality, inclusiveness, patient centredness and clear outcomes. Whilst the benefits of collaborative decision-making were confirmed, legitimate concerns as to the quality of participatory practices, limited attention to group work processes and the exclusion of older patients with cognitive impairment were identified. © 2013 Copyright British Association of Social Workers.

General practitioners perceptions on advance care planning for patients living with dementia

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) facilitates communication and understanding of preferences, nevertheless the use of ACPs in primary care is low. The uncertain course of dementia and the inability to communicate with the patient living with dementia are significant challenges for GPs to initiate discussions on goals of care.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey, using a purposive, cluster sample of GPs across Northern Ireland with registered dementia patients was used. GPs at selected practices received the survey instrument and up to four mail contacts was implemented.

RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-three GPs (40.6%) participated in the survey, representing 60.9% of surveyed practices. While most respondents regarded dementia as a terminal disease (96.2%) only 37.6% felt that palliative care applied equally from the time of diagnosis to severe dementia. While most respondents thought that early discussions would facilitate decision-making during advanced dementia (61%), respondents were divided on whether ACP should be initiated at the time of diagnoses. While most respondents felt that GPs should take the initiative to introduce and encourage ACP, most survey participants acknowledged the need for improved knowledge to involve families in caring for patients with dementia at the end of life and that a standard format for ACP documentation was needed.

CONCLUSION: Optimal timing of ACP discussions should be determined by the readiness of the patient and family carer to face to face end of life. ACP discussions can be enhanced by educational strategies directed towards the patient and family carer that enable shared decision-making with their GP when considering options in future care.

The views of general practitioners on advance care planning for patients living with dementia

Background Advance care planning (ACP) facilitates communication
and understanding of preferences, nevertheless the use of
ACPs in primary care for patients with dementia is low. The disease’s
uncertain course and the inability to communicate with
the patient living with dementia are significant challenges for
GPs.
Aim The purpose of this study was to describe the attitudes and
practice preferences of GPs working within the UK’s National
Health System (NHS) regarding communication, and decisionmaking
for patients with dementia and their families
Methods A cross-sectional survey, using a purposive, cluster sample
of GPs across Northern Ireland with registered dementia
patients was used.
Results One hundred and thirty-three GPs (40.6%) participated
in the survey, representing 60.9% of surveyed practices. While
most respondents regarded dementia as a terminal disease
(96.2%) only 37.6% felt that palliative care applied equally from
the time of diagnosis to severe dementia. While most respondents
thought that early discussions would facilitate decision-making
during advanced dementia (61%), respondents were divided
on whether ACP should be initiated at the time of diagnoses
(39.8% in favour vs 45.8% disagreed). Interestingly, GPs who
were longer in practice placed greater importance on the presence
of an advance directive (F (2, 124) = 3.38, p = 0.037).
Discussion The timing of initiating ACP varies across individuals
requiring GPs to carefully consider strategies and receptiveness
of the patient and family carer.
Conclusion The findings promote both ongoing training in communication
and dementia management for GPs to meet the
needs of their patients living with dementia.

Initiating advance care planning on end-of-life issues in dementia: Ambiguity among UK and Dutch physicians

Background
In dementia, advance care planning (ACP) of end-of-life issues may start as early as possible in view of the patient’s decreasing ability to participate in decision making. We aimed to assess whether practicing physicians in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom who provide most of the end-of-life care, differ in finding that ACP in dementia should start at diagnosis.

Methods
In a cross-sectional study, we surveyed 188 Dutch elderly care physicians who are on the staff of nursing homes and 133 general practitioners from Northern Ireland. We compared difference by country in the outcome (perception of ACP timing), rated on a 1–5 agreement scale. Regression analyses examined whether a country difference can be explained by contrasts in demographics, presence, exposure and role perceptions.

Results
There was wide variability in agreement with the initiation of ACP at dementia diagnosis, in particular in the UK but also in the Netherlands (60.8% agreed, 25.3% disagreed and 14.0% neither agreed, nor disagreed). Large differences in physician characteristics (Dutch physicians being more present, exposed and adopting a stronger role perception) hardly explained the modest country difference. The perception that the physician should take the initiative was independently associated with agreeing with ACP at diagnosis.

Conclusions
There is considerable ambiguity about initiating ACP in dementia at diagnosis among physicians practicing in two different European health care systems and caring for different patient populations. ACP strategies should accommodate not only variations in readiness to engage in ACP early among patient and families, but also among physicians.

The SPHERE Study: Secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: protocol of a randomised controlled trial of tailored practice and patient care plans with parallel qualitative, economic and policy analyses. [ISRCTN24081411]

Background: The aim of the SPHERE study is to design, implement and evaluate tailored practice and personal care plans to improve the process of care and objective clinical outcomes for patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD) in general practice across two different health systems on the island of Ireland.CHD is a common cause of death and a significant cause of morbidity in Ireland. Secondary prevention has been recommended as a key strategy for reducing levels of CHD mortality and general practice has been highlighted as an ideal setting for secondary prevention initiatives. Current indications suggest that there is considerable room for improvement in the provision of secondary prevention for patients with established heart disease on the island of Ireland. The review literature recommends structured programmes with continued support and follow-up of patients; the provision of training, tailored to practice needs of access to evidence of effectiveness of secondary prevention; structured recall programmes that also take account of individual practice needs; and patient-centred consultations accompanied by attention to disease management guidelines.

Methods: SPHERE is a cluster randomised controlled trial, with practice-level randomisation to intervention and control groups, recruiting 960 patients from 48 practices in three study centres (Belfast, Dublin and Galway). Primary outcomes are blood pressure, total cholesterol, physical and mental health status (SF-12) and hospital re-admissions. The intervention takes place over two years and data is collected at baseline, one-year and two-year follow-up. Data is obtained from medical charts, consultations with practitioners, and patient postal questionnaires. The SPHERE intervention involves the implementation of a structured systematic programme of care for patients with CHD attending general practice. It is a multi-faceted intervention that has been developed to respond to barriers and solutions to optimal secondary prevention identified in preliminary qualitative research with practitioners and patients. General practitioners and practice nurses attend training sessions in facilitating behaviour change and medication prescribing guidelines for secondary prevention of CHD. Patients are invited to attend regular four-monthly consultations over two years, during which targets and goals for secondary prevention are set and reviewed. The analysis will be strengthened by economic, policy and qualitative components.

Effect of tailored practice and patient care plans on secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective: To test the effectiveness of a complex intervention designed, within a theoretical framework, to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease. Design: Cluster randomised controlled multicentre trial. Setting: General practices in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, regions with different healthcare systems. Participants: 903 patients with established coronary heart disease registered with one of 48 practices. Intervention: Tailored care plans for practices (practice based training in prescribing and behaviour change, administrative support, quarterly newsletter), and tailored care plans for patients (motivational interviewing, goal identification, and target setting for lifestyle change) with reviews every four months at the practices. Control practices provided usual care. Main outcome measures: The proportion of patients at 18 month follow-up above target levels for blood pressure and total cholesterol concentration, and those admitted to hospital, and changes in physical and mental health status (SF-12). Results: At baseline the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits were: systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg (305/899; 33.9%, 95% confidence interval 30.8% to 33.9%), diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg (111/901; 12.3%, 10.2% to 14.5%), and total cholesterol concentration greater than 5 mmol/l (188/860; 20.8%, 19.1% to 24.6%). At the 18 month follow-up there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits: systolic blood pressure, intervention 98/360 (27.2%) v control, 133/405 (32.8%), odds ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.30; P=0.06); diastolic blood pressure, intervention 32/360 (8.9%) v control, 40/405 (9.9%), 1.40 (0.75 to 2.64; P=0.29); and total cholesterol concentration, intervention 52/342 (15.2%) v control, 64/391 (16.4%), 1.13 (0.63 to 2.03; P=0.65). The number of patients admitted to hospital over the 18 month study period significantly decreased in the intervention group compared with the control group: 107/415 (25.8%) v 148/435 (34.0%), 1.56 (1.53 to 2.60; P=0.03). Conclusions: Admissions to hospital were significantly reduced after an intensive 18 month intervention to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease, but no other clinical benefits were shown, possibly because of a ceiling effect related to improved management of the disease. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24081411.