28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Supporting GPs around euthanasia requests from people with dementia: a qualitative analysis of Dutch nominal group meetings

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Euthanasia has been regulated by law under strict conditions in the Netherlands since 2002. Since then the number of euthanasia cases has constantly increased, and increased exponentially for patients with dementia (PWD). The number of euthanasia requests by such patients is even higher. Recently, an interview study showed that physicians who are confronted with a PWD’s euthanasia request experience problems with communication, pressure from relatives, patients, and society, workload, interpretation of the law, and ethical considerations. Moreover, if honoured, the physician and patient may interpret the right moment for euthanasia differently.

          Aim

          To identify ways of supporting GPs confronted with a PWD’s euthanasia request.

          Design and setting

          Two expert nominal group meetings were organised with Dutch care physicians for older people, GPs, legal experts, a healthcare chaplain, a palliative care consultant, and a psychologist.

          Method

          A total of 15 experts participated in the meetings. Both meetings were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis.

          Results

          Four themes emerged from the meetings: support provided by healthcare professionals, influencing public opinion, educational activities, and managing time and work pressure. The need for support was considered highest for GPs for all of these themes.

          Conclusion

          Consensus was reached with the help of experts on support needs for GPs confronted with euthanasia requests from PWD. A concise and clear explanation of the law is strongly desired. Changing public opinion seems the most challenging and a long-term aim. Communication training for finding the right balance between the physician’s professional responsibility and the patient’s autonomy should be made available, as a short-term aim.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques

            Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how ‘consensus’ is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of ‘experts.’ Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus.

              This paper aims to demonstrate the versatility and application of nominal group technique as a method for generating priority information. Nominal group technique was used in the context of four focus groups involving clinical experts from the emergency department (ED) and obstetric and midwifery areas of a busy regional hospital to assess the triage and management of pregnant women in the ED. The data generated were used to create a priority list of discussion triggers for the subsequent Participatory Action Research Group. This technique proved to be a productive and efficient data collection method which produced information in a hierarchy of perceived importance and identified real world problems. This information was vital in initiating the participatory action research project and is recommended as an effective and reliable data collection method, especially when undertaking research with clinical experts. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Public health physician in infectious disease control
                Role: Medical student
                Role: Senior researcher
                Role: Professor in spiritual healthcare
                Journal
                Br J Gen Pract
                Br J Gen Pract
                bjgp
                bjgp
                The British Journal of General Practice
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                0960-1643
                1478-5242
                November 2020
                20 October 2020
                20 October 2020
                : 70
                : 700
                : e833-e842
                Affiliations
                Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine;
                Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
                Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
                Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
                Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence Jaap Schuurmans, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Email: jschuurmans@ 123456praktijkottenhoff.nl
                Article
                10.3399/bjgp20X713093
                7575404
                33077510
                9f70e02f-51ad-41cd-ada6-59c72b0caa57
                ©The Authors

                This article is Open Access: CC BY-NC 4.0 licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc/4.0/).

                History
                : 25 September 2019
                : 16 January 2020
                : 30 March 2020
                Categories
                Research

                dementia,euthanasia requests,general practitioners,health services, primary health care,support

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log