Transition of patients with recently diagnosed Dementia from inpatient to outpatient setting- a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: After being diagnosed with dementia, patients need a medical professional to empathetically address their fears and get initial questions answered. This scoping review therefore addresses how patients newly diagnosed with dementia are cared for in the general practitioner (GP) setting and how the communication between different healthcare professionals and the GP is handled. METHODS: The scoping review was conducted based on the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. After developing a search algorithm, literature searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, GeroLit and Cinahl using defined search criteria, such as a focus on qualitative study designs. After the removal of duplicates, title/abstract and full text screening was carried out. RESULTS: Final data extraction included 10 articles out of 12,633 records. Strategies regarding the post-acute care of newly diagnosed patients included providing clarity and comfort to the patients and giving support and information both pre- and post-diagnosis. Care efforts were focused on advanced care planning and deprescribing. Involving people with dementia and their caregivers in further care was seen as crucial to provide them with the support needed. GPs emphasised the importance of listening to concerns, as well as ensuring wishes are respected, and autonomy is maintained. All studies found communication between the GP setting and other healthcare professionals regarding post-acute care to be inadequate. Lack of information sharing, clinical notes and recommendations for the GP setting resulted in inefficient provision of support, as GPs feel limited in their ability to act. DISCUSSION: Sharing necessary information with the GP setting could promote patient-centred care for people living with dementia and facilitate appropriate and timely resource allocation and effective healthcare collaboration between the settings, for example, by defining clear care pathways and clarifying roles and expectations.

Conducting Qualitative Research under Pandemic Restrictions - Considerations, Challenges, and Benefits: A Methodological Field Report. / Durchführung qualitativer Forschung unter pandemiebedingten Einschränkungen ­ Überlegungen, Herausforderungen und Vorteile: Ein Erfahrungsbericht.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has a significant impact on professionals working in the medical area, with very high workload and tightened safety restrictions for physicians, nurses, caregivers, and patients. One of the main target participants in health services research are medical professionals. Their experiences contribute immensely to any research project aiming to improve delivery and quality of care. Furthermore, their input gives significantly greater insights into the handling of the pandemic and into what future improvements should be considered. In our research project ADAPTIVE (Impact of Digital Technologies in Palliative Care) we evaluate with qualitative research methods the impact of a web-based software on communication, teamwork, and lasting transformations in accountability in multidisciplinary teams (e. g., medication and independent decisions). In this paper, we discuss the challenges and benefits of conducting a qualitative research project under pandemic conditions by illustrating the progress of ADAPTIVE. METHODS: ADAPTIVE started in March 2020 and ended in August 2021. For data collection, we interviewed 26 participants about using a web-based program to facilitate the exchange of patient information in multidisciplinary teams in outpatient palliative care in Germany (mainly physicians and nurses). However, due to emerging hygiene regulations, corona-related restrictions, and the ongoing workload of medical professionals, the recruiting and interviewing process were challenging. Hence, we had to modify the original study design of two face-to-face interviews per participant and a focus group discussion into one telephone interview. The focus groups were cancelled. RESULTS: We discussed several adjustments to the data collection. However, the privacy policies of different clinics, participants' lack of experience with video calls, and a potential poor internet connectivity eliminated the option of digital video interviewing. Therefore, we interviewed 21 participants by telephone and only five face-to-face. Further, the focus group discussions initially planned had to be dropped since a simultaneous gathering of the participants was not possible due to several reasons. Nonetheless, we obtained many insights into the usage of digital support systems in palliative care by conducting 26 interviews, allowing us to complete the research project. DISCUSSION: Telephone interviews come with limitations. Firstly, it may be difficult for participants to establish a trusting relationship with the interviewer. Secondly, non-verbal communication is lost during a telephone interview. However, expanding the survey methodology to include telephone interviews gave us the option of allowing us to expand the recruitment nationwide and overcome issues successfully. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and data collection showed to be more time-consuming under pandemic circumstances, and further survey methods such as focus groups were nearly impossible. However, a qualitative research design offers greater flexibility when adapting study designs.

How and why educational interventions work to increase knowledge of delirium among healthcare professionals in nursing homes: a protocol for a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a neuropathological condition that impairs cognitive performance, attention and consciousness and can be potentially life-threatening. Nursing home residents are particularly vulnerable to developing delirium, but research thus far tends to focus on the acute hospital setting. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in nursing homes seem to be little aware of delirium. To improve healthcare for affected or at-risk individuals, increasing knowledge among HCPs is highly relevant. Using the realist review method helps to understand how and why an educational intervention for HCPs on delirium in nursing homes works. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In accordance with the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards publication standards for realist syntheses, the review process will include the following five steps: (1) search strategy and literature review; (2) study selection and assessment; (3) data extraction; (4) data synthesis and (5) development of an initial programme theory. The literature search will be conducted in the databases Medline (PubMed), CINAHL (Ebsco), Scopus, Web of Science, GeroLit and Carelit. Additional focuses are on snowballing techniques, hand research and grey literature. Studies of any design will be included to develop the initial programme theory. The literature will be selected by two researchers independently. In addition, the experiences of HCPs from nursing homes will be reflected in group discussions. To this end, Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations (CMOcs) will be established to develop an initial programme theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be disseminated within the scientific community. For this purpose, presentations at scientific conferences as well as publications in peer-reviewed journals are scheduled. In the next step, the CMOcs could serve for the development of a complex educational intervention to increase the knowledge of HCPs on delirium in nursing homes. REGISTRATION DETAILS: This protocol has been registered at Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HTFU4).

General Practitioners' Attitudes towards Essential Competencies in End-of-Life Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Identifying 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. AIM: To 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 SETTING: Cross-sectional postal survey involving a stratified random sample of 2000 GPs in Switzerland in 2014. METHOD: Survey 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: GPs 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 utility of standardized advance directives: the general practitioners' perspective.

Advance directives (AD) are written documents that give patients the opportunity to communicate their preferences regarding treatments they do or do not want to receive in case they become unable to make decisions. Commonly used pre-printed forms have different formats. Some offer space for patients to (a) appoint a surrogate decision maker, and/or (b) to determine future medical treatments and/or (c) give a statement of personal values. So far it is unknown which forms GPs preferably use and why they decide to do so. 23 semi-structured interviews with GPs were analysed using content analysis. Interviewees mainly use short templates (to appoint surrogate decision makers) and medium length templates with checkboxes to indicate patients' preferences in regards to life prolonging measures. Especially when patients faced the progression of a disease, participants use the latter version. Only then, the interviewees remarked, patients are capable to rate concrete situations reliably. GPs also realize the importance of the verbal assessment of patients' preferences; however they rarely keep a written form of the conversation. Some GPs hand out one or more templates and ask their patients to read and think about them at home with the option to talk to them about it later on, while others prefer their patients to fill them out alone at home. Regardless of template usage, most GPs emphasize that ADs require regular updates. GPs tend to see standardized advance directives mainly as a tool to start a conversation with their patients and to identify their real preferences and values. When the patient is still not facing the progression of an already existing disease it could be sufficient to only appoint a surrogate decision maker instead of creating a full AD. However, in all other situations, appointing a surrogate decision maker should be backed up by a written statement of a patient's general values. Patients and their relatives should always have the opportunity to ask their GP for medical advice when drafting an AD. It is crucial to regularly verify and update existing ADs within the course of a disease.

Advance directives and the impact of timing. A qualitative study with Swiss general practitioners.

PRINCIPLES: Advance directives are seen as an important tool for documenting the wishes of patients who are no longer competent to make decisions in regards to their medical care. Due to their nature, approaching the subject of advance directives with a patient can be difficult for both the medical care provider and the patient. This paper focuses on general practitioners' perspectives regarding the timing at which this discussion should take place, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the different moments. METHODS: In 2013, 23 semi-structured face-to-face interviews were performed with Swiss general practitioners. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: In our sample, 23 general practitioners provided different options that they felt were appropriate moments: either (a) when the patient is still healthy, (b) when illness becomes predominant, or (c) when a patient has been transferred to a long-term care facility. Furthermore, general practitioners reported uncertainty and discomfort regarding initiating the discussion. CONCLUSION: 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.