BACKGROUND: Communication with patients on end-of-life decisions is a delicate topic for which there is little guidance. AIM: To describe the development of a guideline for GPs on end-of-life communication with patients who wish to die at home, in a context where patient autonomy and euthanasia are legally regulated. DESIGN OF STUDY: A three-phase process (generation, elaboration and validation). In the generation phase, literature findings were structured and then prioritised in a focus group with GPs of a palliative care consultation network. In the elaboration phase, qualitative data on patients' and caregivers' perspectives were gathered through a focus group with next-of-kin, in-depth interviews with terminal patients, and four quality circle sessions with representatives of all constituencies. In the validation phase, the acceptability of the draft guideline was reviewed in bipolar focus groups (GPs-nurses and GPs-specialists). Finally, comments were solicited from experts by mail. SETTING: Primary home care in Belgium. SUBJECTS: Participants in this study were terminal patients (n = 17), next-of-kin of terminal patients (n = 17), GPs (n = 25), specialists (n = 3), nurses (n = 8), other caregivers (n = 2) and experts (n = 41). RESULTS: Caregivers and patients expressed a need for a comprehensive guideline on communication in end-of-life decisions. Four major communication themes were prioritised: truth telling; exploration of the patient's wishes regarding the end of life; dealing with disproportionate interventions; and dealing with requests for euthanasia in the terminal phase of life. Additional themes required special attention in the guideline: continuity of care by the GP; communication on foregoing food and fluid; and technical aspects of euthanasia. CONCLUSION: It was feasible to develop a guideline by combining the three cornerstones of evidence-based medicine: literature search, patient values and professional experience.
BACKGROUND: Communication with patients on end-of-life decisions is a delicate topic for which there is little guidance. AIM: To describe the development of a guideline for GPs on end-of-life communication with patients who wish to die at home, in a context where patient autonomy and euthanasia are legally regulated. DESIGN OF STUDY: A three-phase process (generation, elaboration and validation). In the generation phase, literature findings were structured and then prioritised in a focus group with GPs of a palliative care consultation network. In the elaboration phase, qualitative data on patients' and caregivers' perspectives were gathered through a focus group with next-of-kin, in-depth interviews with terminal patients, and four quality circle sessions with representatives of all constituencies. In the validation phase, the acceptability of the draft guideline was reviewed in bipolar focus groups (GPs-nurses and GPs-specialists). Finally, comments were solicited from experts by mail. SETTING: Primary home care in Belgium. SUBJECTS:Participants in this study were terminal patients (n = 17), next-of-kin of terminal patients (n = 17), GPs (n = 25), specialists (n = 3), nurses (n = 8), other caregivers (n = 2) and experts (n = 41). RESULTS: Caregivers and patients expressed a need for a comprehensive guideline on communication in end-of-life decisions. Four major communication themes were prioritised: truth telling; exploration of the patient's wishes regarding the end of life; dealing with disproportionate interventions; and dealing with requests for euthanasia in the terminal phase of life. Additional themes required special attention in the guideline: continuity of care by the GP; communication on foregoing food and fluid; and technical aspects of euthanasia. CONCLUSION: It was feasible to develop a guideline by combining the three cornerstones of evidence-based medicine: literature search, patient values and professional experience.
Authors: Gail Ewing; Margaret Rogers; Stephen Barclay; Janet McCabe; Anna Martin; Malcolm Campbell; Chris Todd Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: John P Griffin; Judith E Nelson; Kathryn A Koch; Harvey B Niell; Terrence F Ackerman; Melinda Thompson; F Hammond Cole Journal: Chest Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Agnes van der Heide; Luc Deliens; Karin Faisst; Tore Nilstun; Michael Norup; Eugenio Paci; Gerrit van der Wal; Paul J van der Maas Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-08-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Koen Meeussen; Lieve Van den Block; Nathalie Bossuyt; Michael Echteld; Johan Bilsen; Luc Deliens Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-04-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Koen Meeussen; Lieve Van den Block; Nathalie Bossuyt; Johan Bilsen; Michael Echteld; Viviane Van Casteren; Luc Deliens Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Natalie Evans; H Roeline W Pasman; Sheila A Payne; Jane Seymour; Sabine Pleschberger; Reginald Deschepper; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Lieve Van den Block; Reginald Deschepper; Johan Bilsen; Nathalie Bossuyt; Viviane Van Casteren; Luc Deliens Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 3.295