Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- advanced care planning (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Access to specialized care is essential for people with Parkinson´s disease (PD). Given the growing number of people with PD and the lack of general practitioners and neurologists, particularly in rural areas in Germany, specialized PD staff (PDS), such as PD nurse specialists and Parkinson Assistants (PASS), will play an increasingly important role in the care of people with PD over the coming years. PDS have several tasks, such as having a role as an educator or adviser for other health professionals or an advocate for people with PD to represent and justify their needs. PD nurse specialists have been established for a long time in the Netherlands, England, the USA, and Scandinavia. In contrast, in Germany, distinct PDS models and projects have been established. However, these projects and models show substantial heterogeneity in terms of access requirements, education, theoretical and practical skills, principal workplace (inpatient vs. outpatient), and reimbursement. This review provides an overview of the existing forms and regional models for PDS in Germany. PDS reimbursement concepts must be established that will foster an implementation throughout Germany. Additionally, development of professional roles in nursing and more specialized care in Germany is needed.
Background: Despite a recent statutory ruling stating the binding nature of advance directives (ADs), only a minority of the population has signed one. Yet, a majority deem it of utmost importance to ensure their wishes are followed through in case they are no longer able to decide. The reasons for this discrepancy have not yet been investigated sufficiently.
Patients and methods: This article is based on a survey of patients using a well-established structured questionnaire. First, patients were asked about their attitudes with respect to six therapeutic options at the end of life: intravenous fluids, artificial feeding, antibiotics, analgesia, chemotherapy/dialysis, and artificial ventilation; and second, they were asked about the negative effects related to the idea of ADs surveying their apprehensions: coercion to fulfill an AD, dictatorial reading of what had been laid down, and abuse of ADs.
Results: A total of 1,260 interviewees completed the questionnaires. A significant percentage of interviewees were indecisive with respect to therapeutic options, ranging from 25% (analgesia) to 45% (artificial feeding). There was no connection to health status. Apprehensions about unwanted effects of ADs were widespread, at 51%, 35%, and 43% for coercion, dictatorial reading, and abuse, respectively.
Conclusion: A significant percentage of interviewees were unable to anticipate decisions about treatment options at the end of life. Apprehensions about negative adverse effects of ADs are widespread.