Background Advance care planning (ACP) is a crucial element of palliative care. It improves the quality of end-of-life care and reduces aggressive and needless life-prolonging medical interventions. However, little is known about its application in daily practice. This study aims to examine the application of ACP for patients with cancer in general practice. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study in 11 general practices in the Netherlands. Electronic patient records (EPRs) of deceased patients with colorectal or lung cancer were analysed. Data on ACP documentation, correspondence between medical specialist and GP, and health care use in the last year of life were extracted. Results Records of 163 deceased patients were analysed. In 74% of the records, one or more ACP items were registered. GPs especially documented patients’ preferences for euthanasia (58%), palliative sedation (46%) and preferred place of death (26%). Per patient, GPs received on average six letters from medical specialists. These letters mainly contained information regarding medical treatment and rarely ACP items. In the last year of life, patients contacted the GP over 30 times, and 51% visited the emergency department at least once, of whom 54% in the last month. Conclusions Registration of ACP items in GPs’ EPRs appeared to be limited. ACP elements were rarely subject of communication between primary and secondary care, which may impact the continuity of patient care during the last year of life. More emphasis on registration of ACP items and better exchange of information regarding patients’ preferences are needed.

Background Patients with incurable cancer face complex medical decisions. Their family caregivers play a prominent role in shared decision making processes, but we lack insights into their experiences. In this study, we explored how bereaved family caregivers experienced the shared decision making process. Methods We performed a qualitative interview study with in-depth interviews analysed with inductive content analysis. We used a purposive sample of bereaved family caregivers (n = 16) of patients with cancer treated in a tertiary university hospital in the Netherlands. Results Four themes were identified: 1. scenarios of decision making, 2. future death of the patient 3. factors influencing choices when making a treatment decision, and 4. preconditions for the decision making process. Most family caregivers deferred decisions to the patient or physician. Talking about the patient’s future death was not preferred by all family caregivers. All family caregivers reported life prolongation as a significant motivator for treatment, while the quality of life was rarely mentioned. A respectful relationship, close involvement, and open communication with healthcare professionals in the palliative setting were valued by many interviewees. Family caregivers’ experiences and needs seemed to be overlooked during medical encounters. Conclusions Family caregivers of deceased patients with cancer mentioned life prolongation, and not quality of life, as the most important treatment aim. They highly valued interactions with the medical oncologist and being involved in the conversations. We advise medical oncologists to take more effort to involve the family caregiver, and more explicitly address quality of life in the consultations.

Background: The Surprise Question (“ Would I be surprised if this patient were to die within the next 12  months?”) is widely used to identify palliative patients, though with low predictive value. To improve timely identification of palliative care needs, we propose an additional Surprise Question (“ Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12  months?”) if the original Surprise Question is answered with “no.” The combination of the two questions is called the Double Surprise Question. Aim: To examine the prognostic accuracy of the Double Surprise Question in outpatients with cancer. Design: A prospective study. Participants: Twelve medical oncologists completed the Double Surprise Question for 379 patients. Results: In group 1 (original Surprise Question “yes”: surprised if dead) 92.1% (176/191) of the patients were still alive after 1 year, in group 2a (original and additional Surprise Question “no”: not surprised if dead and not surprised if alive) 60.0% (63/105), and in group 2b (original Surprise Question “no,” additional Surprise Question “yes”: surprised if alive) 26.5% (22/83) ( p < 0.0001). The positive predictive value increased by using the Double Surprise Question; 74% (61/83) vs 55% (103/188). Anticipatory palliative care provision and Advance Care Planning items were most often documented in group 2b. Conclusions: The Double Surprise Question is a promising tool to more accurately identify outpatients with cancer at risk of dying within 1 year, and therefore, those in need of palliative care. Studies should reveal whether the implementation of the Double Surprise Question leads to more timely palliative care.

Background In many cases, life-sustaining treatment preferences are not timely discussed with older patients. Advance care planning (ACP) offers medical professionals an opportunity to discuss patients’ preferences. We assessed how often these preferences were known when older patients were referred to the emergency department (ED) for an acute geriatric assessment. Methods We conducted a descriptive study on patients referred to the ED for an acute geriatric assessment in a Dutch hospital. Patients were referred by general practitioners (GPs), or in the case of nursing home residents, by elderly care physicians. The referring physician was asked if preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments were known. The primary outcome was the number of patients for whom preferences were known. Secondary outcomes included which preferences, and which variables predict known preferences. Results Between 2015 and 2017, 348 patients were included in our study. At least one preference regarding life-sustaining treatments was known at referral in 45.4% (158/348) cases. In these cases, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) policy was always included. Preferences regarding invasive ventilation policy and ICU admission were known in 17% (59/348) and 10.3% (36/348) of the cases respectively. Known preferences were more frequent in cases referred by the elderly care physician than the GP (P < 0.001). Conclusions In less than half the patients, at least one preference regarding life-sustaining treatments was known at the time of referral to the ED for an acute geriatric assessment; in most cases it concerned CPR policy. We recommend optimizing ACP conversations in a non-acute setting to provide more appropriate, desired, and personalized care to older patients referred to the ED.