Background One of the strategies to promote the quality of palliative care in non-specialised settings is the appointment of palliative care nurse champions. It is unclear what the most effective model to implement the concept of nurse champions is and little is known about palliative care nurse champions’ own views on their role and responsibilities. This paper aims to describe views of palliative care nurse champions in hospitals and home care on their role, responsibilities and added value. Methods In 2018, a qualitative interview study was conducted with 16 palliative care nurse champions in two hospitals and four home care organisations in the southwest of the Netherlands. The framework approach was used to analyse the data. Results Most palliative care nurse champions described their role by explaining concrete tasks or activities. Most nurse champions perceive their main task as disseminating information about palliative care to colleagues. A few nurses mentioned activities aimed at raising awareness of palliative care among colleagues. Most nurses were to a limited extent involved in collaboration with the palliative care expert team. Hospital nurse champions suggested that more support from the palliative care expert team would be helpful. Most nurse champions feel little responsibility for organisational tasks and inter-organisational collaboration. Especially hospital nurses found it difficult to describe their role. Conclusion The role of palliative care nurse champions in hospital and home care varies a lot and nurses have diverging views on palliative care in these settings. Comprehensively fulfilling the role of palliative care nurse champion is a challenge. Careful selection, training, support and task descriptions for nurse champions are needed to make the concept of nurse champions work in palliative care.

BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) can help to enhance the care of patients with limited life expectancy. Despite physicians’ key role in ACP, the ways in which physicians estimate and communicate prognosis can be improved.AimTo determine how physicians in different care settings self-assess their performance in estimating and communicating prognosis to patients in palliative care, and how they perceive their communication with other physicians about patients’ poor prognosis.Design & settingA survey study was performed among a random sample of GPs, hospital physicians (HPs), and nursing home physicians (NHPs) in the southwest of the Netherlands (n = 2212).MethodA questionnaire was developed that had three versions for GPs, HPs, and NHPs. Each specialism filled in an appropriate version.ResultsA total of 547 physicians participated: 259 GPs, 205 HPs, and 83 NHPs. In the study, 61.1% of physicians indicated being able to adequately estimate whether a patient will die within 1 year, which was associated with use of the Surprise Question (odds ratio [OR] = 1.65, P = 0.042). In the case of a prognosis of <1 year, 75.0% of physicians indicated that they communicate with patients about preferences regarding treatment and care, which was associated with physicians being trained in palliative care (OR = 2.02, P=0.007). In cases where patients with poor prognosis are discharged after hospital admission, 83.4% of HPs indicated that they inform GPs about these patients’ preferences compared with 29.0% of GPs, and 21.7% of NHPs, who indicated that they are usually adequately informed about the preferences.ConclusionThe majority of physicians indicated that they believe they can adequately estimate patients’ limited life expectancy and that they discuss patients’ preferences for care. However, more physicians should be trained in communicating about patients’ poor prognosis and care preferences.

Background When patients receiving palliative care are transferred between care settings, adequate collaboration and information exchange between health care professionals is necessary to ensure continuity, efficiency and safety of care. Several studies identified deficits in communication and information exchange between care settings. Aim of this study was to get insight in the quality of collaboration and information exchange in palliative care from the perspectives of nurses. Methods We performed a cross-sectional regional survey study among nurses working in different care settings. Nurses were approached via professional networks and media. Respondents were asked questions about collaboration in palliative care in general and about their last deceased patient. Potential associations between quality scores for collaboration and information handovers and characteristics of respondents or patients were tested with Pearson’s chi-square test. Results A total of 933 nurses filled in the questionnaire. Nurses working in nursing homes were least positive about inter-organizational collaboration. Forty-six per cent of all nurses had actively searched for such collaboration in the last year. For their last deceased patient, 10% of all nurses had not received the information handover in time, 33% missed information they needed. An adequate information handover was positively associated with timeliness and completeness of the information and the patient being well-informed, not with procedural characteristics. Conclusion Nurses report that collaboration between care settings and information exchange in palliative care is suboptimal. This study suggests that health care organizations should give more attention to shared professionalization towards inter-organizational collaboration among nurses in order to facilitate high-quality palliative care.

Background In the Netherlands, healthcare professionals attending patients in the last phase of life, can consult an expert palliative care team (PCT) in case of complex problems. There are two types of PCTs: regional PCTs, which are mainly consulted by general practitioners, and hospital PCTs, which are mainly consulted by healthcare professionals in the hospital. Integration of these PCTs is expected to facilitate continuity of care for patients receiving care in different settings. We studied facilitators and barriers in the process of developing and implementing an integrated transmural palliative care consultation service. Methods A multiple case study was performed in four palliative care networks in the southwest Netherlands. We aimed to develop an integrated transmural palliative care consultation service. Researchers were closely observing the process and participated in project team meetings. A within-case analysis was conducted for each network, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Subsequently, all findings were pooled. Results In each network, project team members thought that the core goal of a transmural consultation service is improvement of continuity of palliative care for patients throughout their illness trajectory. It was nevertheless a challenge for hospital and non-hospital healthcare professionals to arrive at a shared view on goals, activities and working procedures of the transmural consultation service. All project teams experienced the lack of evidence-based guidance on how to organise the service as a barrier. The role of the management of the involved care organisations was sometimes perceived as unsupportive, and different financial reimbursement systems for hospital and out-of-hospital care made implementation of a transmural consultation service complex. Three networks managed to develop and implement a transmural service at some level, one network did not manage to do so. Conclusions Healthcare professionals are motivated to collaborate in a transmural palliative care consultation service, because they believe it can contribute to high-quality palliative care. However, they need more shared views on goals and activities of a transmural consultation service, more guidance on organisational issues and appropriate financing. Further research is needed to provide evidence on benefits and costs of different models of integrated transmural palliative care consultation services.

Background Individuals with serious illness face complex healthcare decisions which have important and lasting consequences. Person-centered care can be achieved when personal values, goals, and beliefs are aligned with the actual care provided.Person-centered decision-making requires a) clear, accurate and unbiased information about all options, including risks versus benefits; b) clinician investment and expertise in engaging and communicating with patients; and c) the effective integration of personal values, goals, and beliefs into choices. Person-centered decision aids (PDAs) are tools designed to help patients and providers in the process of shared decisionmaking. Research shows, high quality PDAs lead to increased knowledge, more accurate risk perception, reduced indecision about care, and improved patient engagement. Methods Based on criteria developed by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration (IPDAS), Healthier Washington Initiative, Washington State, USA, developed and implemented a process of certifying PDAs to assure they are effective, accurate, unbiased tools to use in the shared decision-making process. Implementation of quality PDAs can be standardized using the fundamentals described in the National Quality Forum's(NQF) National Quality Partners (NQP) Playbook-Shared Decision-Making in HealthCare. Results This presentation will review certification criteria for developing high-quality PDAs. A four-phased approach will be discussed that describes the process of developing and certifying three serious illness decision aids and their integration within Respecting Choices ® person-centered decision-making programs. Conclusion Development and certification of quality PDAs in healthcare organizations using a standard approach to the decision-making process can support a culture of person-centered care.