Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

During the COVID-19 outbreak restricting measures may have affected the provision of good end-of-life care for patients with and without COVID-19. To describe characteristics of patients who died and the care they received, and to examine how patient characteristics, setting and visiting restrictions are related to provided care and evaluation of the dying process. An open observational online survey among healthcare professionals about their experience of end-of-life care that was provided to a patient with or without COVID-19 who died between March and July 2020. Healthcare professionals (nurses, physicians and others) in the Netherlands from all settings: home (n = 163), hospital (n = 249), nursing home (n = 192), hospice (n = 89) or elsewhere (n = 68). Of patients reported on, 56% had COVID-19. Among these patients, 358 (84.4%) also had a serious chronic illness. Having COVID-19 was negatively, and having a serious chronic illness was positively associated with healthcare staff’s favourable appreciation of end-of-life care. Often there had been visiting restrictions in the last 2 days of life (75.8%). This was negatively associated with appreciation of care at the end of life and the dying process. Finally, care at the end of life was less favourably appreciated in hospitals and especially nursing homes, and more favourably in home settings and especially hospices. Our study suggests that end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic may be further optimised, especially in nursing homes and hospitals. Allowing at least some level of visits of relatives seems a key component.

To examine the effectiveness of different communication strategies for mitigating language barriers on patient-, provider- and context-related outcomes. A systematic search was conducted in nine databases for quantitative studies from 2013 comparing different strategies. The studies' quality was assessed with the Evidence Project Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach. Twenty-six articles were included, all about healthcare settings. Generally, having a shared language (e.g., a provider in the patient's native language) followed by using professional interpreters yielded the most positive outcomes, and in-person or video interpreters more than telephone interpreters. Compared to professional interpreters, the translation quality of informal interpreters was only similar when assessing patient outcomes after surgery, and the quality of digital translation tools was only sufficient with simple messages or when messages were pre-translated. Having a provider in patients' native language and having professional interpreters outperform other strategies for mitigating language barriers in healthcare. However, other strategies may suffice in specific situations. Future research should explore the effectiveness of (combining) strategies, especially in social care. This review can inform policy and help develop guidelines on mitigating language barriers to support providers in their daily practice.

For many patients with advanced cancer, the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical trials or not is complex. The decision-making process requires an in-depth discussion of patient values. We therefore aimed to synthesize and describe patient values that may affect early phase clinical trial participation. We conducted a systematic search in seven electronic databases on patient values in relation to patients' decisions to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials. From 3072 retrieved articles, eleven quantitative and five qualitative studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We extracted ten patient values that can contribute to patients' decisions. Overall, patients who seek trial participation usually report hope, trust, quantity of life, altruism, perseverance, faith and/or risk tolerance as important values. Quality of life and humanity are main values of patients who refuse trial participation. Autonomy and social adherence can be reported by both trial seekers or refusers, dependent upon how they are manifested in a patient. We identified patient values that frequently play a role in the decision-making process. In the setting of discussing early phase clinical trial participation with patients, healthcare professionals need to be aware of these values. This analysis supports the importance of individual exploration of values. Patients that become aware of their values, e.g. by means of interventions focused on clarifying their values, could feel more empowered to choose. Subsequently, healthcare professionals could improve their support in a patients' decision-making process and reduce the chance of decisional conflict.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and restricting measures have affected end-of-life care across different settings. Aim: To compare experiences of bereaved relatives with end-of-life care for a family member or friend who died at home, in a hospital, nursing home or hospice during the pandemic. Design: An open observational online survey was developed and disseminated via social media and public fora (March–July 2020). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses. Participants: Individuals who lost a family member or friend in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: The questionnaire was filled out by 393 bereaved relatives who lost a family member or friend at home ( n  =   68), in a hospital ( n  =   114), nursing home ( n  =   176) or hospice ( n  =   35). Bereaved relatives of patients who died in a hospital most often evaluated medical care (79%) as sufficient, whereas medical care (54.5%) was least often evaluated as sufficient in nursing homes. Emotional support for relatives was most often evaluated as sufficient at home (67.7%) and least often in nursing homes (40.3%). Sufficient emotional support for relatives was associated with a higher likelihood to rate the place of death as appropriate. Bereaved relatives of patients who died at a place other than home and whose care was restricted due to COVID-19 were less likely to evaluate the place of death as appropriate. Conclusion: End-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic was evaluated least favourably in nursing homes. The quality of emotional support for relatives and whether care was restricted or not were important for assessing the place of death as appropriate.

Background: Patients with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic treatment is no longer available may be offered participation in early phase clinical trials. In the decision making process, both medical-technical information and patient values and preferences are important. Since patients report decisional conflict after deciding on participation in these trials, improving the decision making process is essential. We aim to develop and evaluate an Online Value Clarification Tool (OnVaCT) to assist patients in clarifying their values around this end-of-life decision. This improved sharing of values is hypothesized to support medical oncologists in tailoring their information to individual patients’ needs and, consequently, to support patients in taking decisions in line with their values and reduce decisional conflict. Methods: In the first part, patients’ values and preferences and medical oncologists’ views hereupon will be explored in interviews and focus groups to build a first prototype OnVaCT using digital communication (serious gaming). Next, we will test feasibility during think aloud sessions, to deliver a ready-to-implement OnVaCT. In the second part, the OnVaCT, with accompanied training module, will be evaluated in a pre-test (12–18 months before implementation) post-test (12–18 months after implementation) study in three major Dutch cancer centres. We will include 276 patients (> 18 years) with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic therapy is no longer available, and who are referred for participation in early phase clinical trials. The first consultation will be recorded to analyse patient-physician communication regarding the discussion of patients’ values and the decision making process. Three weeks afterwards, decisional conflict will be measured. Discussion: This project aims to support the discussion of patient values when considering participation in early phase clinical trials. By including patients before their first appointment with the medical oncologist and recording that consultation, we are able to link decisional conflict to the decision making process, e.g. the communication during consultation. The study faces challenges such as timely including patients within the short period between referral and first consultation. Furthermore, with new treatments being developed rapidly, molecular stratification may affect the patient populations included in the pre-test and post-test periods. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry number: NTR7551 (prospective; July 17, 2018).