End-of-life care and circumstances of death in patients dying as a result of cancer in Belgium and the Netherlands: a retrospective comparative study.

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.04). 11/2011; 29(32):4327-34. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.9498
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine and compare end-of-life care in patients with cancer dying in Belgium and the Netherlands.
A mortality follow-back study was undertaken in 2008 via representative nationwide sentinel networks of general practitioners (GPs) in Belgium and the Netherlands. By using similar standardized procedures, GPs reported on aspects of end-of-life care and the circumstances of nonsudden death of patients with cancer in their practice.
Of the 422 reported patients with cancer, most resided at home during the last year of life (Belgium, 91%; the Netherlands, 95%). Death occurred at home in 34% (Belgium) and 61% (the Netherlands) and in the hospital in 29% (Belgium) and 19% (the Netherlands). In the last month of life, end-of-life issues were more often discussed in the Netherlands (88%) than in Belgium (68%). In both countries, physical problems were discussed most often (Belgium, 49%; the Netherlands, 78%) and spiritual issues least often (Belgium, 20%; the Netherlands, 32%). Certain end-of-life treatment preferences were known for 43% (Belgium) and 67% (the Netherlands) of patients. In the last week of life, treatment was most often focused on palliation (Belgium, 94%; the Netherlands, 91%). Physical distress was reported in 84% (Belgium) and 76% (the Netherlands) of patients and psychological distress in 59% and 36%. Most distressing was lack of energy (Belgium, 73%; the Netherlands, 71%) and lack of appetite (Belgium, 61%; the Netherlands, 53%). Two thirds of patients were bedridden (Belgium, 67%; the Netherlands, 69%).
Although place of death and communication about end-of-life issues differ substantially, a palliative treatment goal is adopted for the vast majority of patients in both countries. However, GPs reported that the majority of patients experienced symptom distress at the end of life, which suggests important challenges remain for improving end-of-life care.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Š Korevaar JC, Heins MJ, Donker GA, Rijken PM, Schellevis FG. Oncologie in de huisartsenpraktijk. Huisarts Wet 2013;56(1):6-10. Doel Kanker komt steeds vaker voor en de behandelingsmogelijkheden worden beter. De huisarts krijgt dus steeds meer mensen in zijn praktijk die in het verleden voor kanker zijn behandeld. Dit artikel geeft een overzicht van de impact van maligne aandoeningen in de huisartsenpraktijk. Methode Op basis van het Landelijk Informatie Netwerk Huisartsenzorg (LINH) hebben we de incidentie van de 10 meest voorkomende kankersoorten over de periode 2002-2010 bepaald, alsmede het aantal contacten met de praktijk in de eerste twee jaar na de diagnose. LINH is een landelijk representatief netwerk van 84 huisartsenpraktijken met meer dan 335.000 ingeschreven patiënten. Resultaten In een normpraktijk heeft een huisarts gemiddeld 73 volwassen patiënten bij wie de diagnose kanker minder dan 9 jaar geleden gesteld is. Bij 33 van deze patiënten is de diagnose minder dan 2 jaar geleden gesteld. Patiënten met kanker hebben de eerste 2 jaar na de diagnosestelling gemiddeld 11 contacten per jaar met de huisartsenpraktijk, waarbij het aantal contacten toeneemt met de leeftijd. Twee tot 3 contacten zijn gerelateerd aan de diagnose kanker. Van de overige contacten houden gemiddeld 3 contacten per jaar verband met alledaagse klachten, vindt er minder dan 1 contact plaats vanwege psychosociale problemen en heeft 1 contact te maken met infectieziekten. Ter vergelijking: alle Nederlanders van 18 jaar en ouder hebben gemiddeld 4 contacten per jaar met de huisartsenpraktijk, dus ruim minder dan de helft van het aantal van kankerpatiënten. Conclusie Gezien de verwachte toename van het aantal patiënten met kanker, gecombineerd met de hogere zorgvraag die deze groep patiënten heeft en de mogelijke verschuiving van de oncologische zorg van de tweede naar de eerste lijn, zullen patiënten met kanker een groter aandeel van de totale huisartsenzorg gaan opeisen. Het is van belang dat alle betrokken partijen tijdig anticiperen op deze groeiende zorgvraag.
    Huisarts en wetenschap 56(1).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effective communication is central to high-quality end-of-life care. This study examined the prevalence of general practitioner (GP)-patient discussion of end-of-life topics (according to the GP) in Italy, Spain, Belgium, and The Netherlands and associated patient and care characteristics. This cross-sectional, retrospective survey was conducted with representative GP networks. Using a standardized form, GPs recorded the health and care characteristics in the last three months of life, and the discussion of 10 end-of-life topics, of all patients who died under their care. The mean number of topics discussed, the prevalence of discussion of each topic, and patient and care characteristics associated with discussions were estimated per country. In total, 4396 nonsudden deaths were included. On average, more topics were discussed in The Netherlands (mean=6.37), followed by Belgium (4.45), Spain (3.32), and Italy (3.19). The topics most frequently discussed in all countries were "physical complaints" and the "primary diagnosis," whereas "spiritual and existential issues" were the least frequently discussed. Discussions were most prevalent in The Netherlands, followed by Belgium. The GPs from all countries tended to discuss fewer topics with older patients, noncancer patients, patients with dementia, patients for whom palliative care was not an important treatment aim, and patients for whom their GP had not provided palliative care. The prevalence of end-of-life discussions varied across the four countries. In all countries, training priorities should include the identification and discussion of spiritual and social problems and early end-of-life discussions with older patients, those with cognitive decline if possible, and those with non-malignant diseases.
    Journal of pain and symptom management 08/2014; 47(3):604–619.e3. · 2.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dying at home and dying at the preferred place of death are advocated to be desirable outcomes of palliative care. More insight is needed in their usefulness as quality indicators. Our objective is to describe whether "the percentage of patients dying at home" and "the percentage of patients who died in their place of preference" are feasible and informative quality indicators. A mortality follow-back study was conducted, based on data recorded by representative GP networks regarding home-dwelling patients who died non-suddenly in Belgium (n = 1036), the Netherlands (n = 512), Italy (n = 1639) or Spain (n = 565). "The percentage of patients dying at home" ranged between 35.3% (Belgium) and 50.6% (the Netherlands) in the four countries, while "the percentage of patients dying at their preferred place of death" ranged between 67.8% (Italy) and 86.0% (Spain). Both indicators were strongly associated with palliative care provision by the GP (odds ratios of 1.55-13.23 and 2.30-6.63, respectively). The quality indicator concerning the preferred place of death offers a broader view than the indicator concerning home deaths, as it takes into account all preferences met in all locations. However, GPs did not know the preferences for place of death in 39.6% (the Netherlands) to 70.3% (Italy), whereas the actual place of death was known in almost all cases. GPs know their patients' actual place of death, making the percentage of home deaths a feasible indicator for collection by GPs. However, patients' preferred place of death was often unknown to the GP. We therefore recommend using information from relatives as long as information from GPs on the preferred place of death is lacking. Timely communication about the place where patients want to be cared for at the end of life remains a challenge for GPs.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(4):e93762. · 3.53 Impact Factor


Available from
May 19, 2014