Quality indicators of palliative care for acute cardiovascular diseases

Bereaved family members' perspectives on quality of death in deceased acute cardiovascular disease patients compared with cancer patients - a comparison of the J-HOPE3 study and the quality of palliative care in heart disease (Q-PACH) study

BACKGROUND

Outcome measures during acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) phases, such as quality of death, have not been thoroughly evaluated. This is the first study that compared the family members' perceptions of quality of death in deceased CVD patients and in deceased cancer patients using a bereaved family survey.

METHODS

Retrospectively sent questionnaire to consecutive family members of deceased patients with CVD from ten tertiary hospitals from October 2017 to August 2018. We used the short version of the Good Death Inventory (GDI) and assessed overall care satisfaction. Referencing the GDI, the quality of death was compared between CVD patients admitted to a non-palliative care unit (non-PCU) and cancer patients in palliative care units (PCU) and non-PCUs in the Japan Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation Study (J-HOPE Study). Additionally, in the adjusted analysis, multivariable linear regression was performed for total GDI score adjusted by the patient and participant characteristics to estimate the difference between CVD and other patients.

RESULTS

Of the 243 bereaved family responses in agreement (response rate: 58.7%) for CVD patients, deceased patients comprised 133 (54.7%) men who were 80.2 ± 12.2 years old on admission. The GDI score among CVD patients (75.0 ± 15.7) was lower (worse) than that of cancer patients in the PCUs (80.2 ± 14.3), but higher than in non-PCUs (74.4 ± 15.2). After adjustment, the total GDI score for CVD patients was 7.10 points lower [95% CI: 5.22-8.97] than for cancer patients in PCUs and showed no significant differences compared with those in non-PCUs (estimates, 1.62; 95% CI [-0.46 to 5.22]).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of death perceived by bereaved family members among deceased acute CVD patients did not differ significantly from that of deceased cancer patients in general wards, however, was significantly lower than that of deceased cancer patients admitted in PCUs.

Quality indicators of palliative care for cardiovascular intensive care

Healthcare providers working for cardiovascular intensive care often face challenges and they play an essential role in palliative care and end-of-life care because of the high mortality rates in the cardiac intensive care unit. Unfortunately, there are several barriers to integrating palliative care, cardiovascular care, and intensive care. The main reasons are as follows: cardiovascular disease-specific trajectories differ from cancer, there is uncertainty associated with treatments and diagnoses, aggressive treatments are necessary for symptom relief, and there is ethical dilemma regarding withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Quality indicators that can iterate the minimum requirements of each medical discipline could be used to overcome these barriers and effectively practice palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Unfortunately, there are no specific quality indicators for palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. A few indicators and their domains are useful for understanding current palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Among them, several domains, such as symptom palliation, patient- and family-centered decision-making, continuity of care, and support for health care providers that are particularly important in cardiovascular intensive care.

Historically, the motivation for using quality indicators is to summarize mechanisms for external accountability and verification, and formative mechanisms for quality improvement. Practically, when using quality indicators, it is necessary to check structural indicators in each healthcare service line, screen palliative care at the first visit, and integrate palliative care teams with other professionals. Finally, we would like to state that quality indicators in cardiovascular intensive care could be useful as an educational tool for practicing palliative care, understanding the minimum requirements, and as a basic structure for future discussions.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the physician education program on primary palliative care in heart failure

Major cardiology societies’ guidelines support integrating palliative care into heart failure (HF) care. This study aimed to identify the effectiveness of the HEart failure Palliative care Training program for comprehensive care providers (HEPT), a physician education program on primary palliative care in HF. We performed a pre- and post-test survey to evaluate HEPT outcomes. Physician-reported practices, difficulties and knowledge were evaluated using the Palliative Care Self-Reported Practices Scale in HF (PCPS-HF), Palliative Care Difficulties Scale in HF (PCDS-HF), and Palliative care knowledge Test in HF (PT-HF), respectively. Structural equation models (SEM) were used to estimate path coefficients for PCPS-HF, PCDS-HF, and PT-HF. A total of 207 physicians participated in the HEPT between February 2018 and July 2019, and 148 questionnaires were ultimately analyzed. The total PCPS-HF, PCDS-HF, and PT-HF scores were significantly improved 6 months after HEPT completion (61.1 vs 67.7, p<0.001, 54.9 vs 45.1, p<0.001, and 20.8 vs 25.7, p<0.001, respectively). SEM analysis showed that for pre-post difference (Dif) PCPS-HF, “clinical experience of more than 14 years” and pre-test score had significant negative effects (-2.31, p = 0.048, 0.52, p<0.001, respectively). For Dif PCDS-HF, ≥ “28 years old or older” had a significant positive direct effect (13.63, p<0.001), although the pre-test score had a negative direct effect (-0.56, p<0.001). For PT-HF, “involvement in more than 50 HF patients’ treatment in the past year” showed a positive direct effect (0.72, p = 0.046), although the pre-test score showed a negative effect (-0.78, p<0.001). Physicians who completed the HEPT showed significant improvements in practice, difficulty, and knowledge scales in HF palliative care.

Palliative key aspects are of importance for symptom relief during the last week of life in patients with heart failure

AIMS

This study aimed to describe symptom prevalence of pain, shortness of breath, anxiety, and nausea and to identify factors associated with symptom relief in patients with heart failure during their last week of life.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This nationwide study used data from the Swedish Register of Palliative Care and the Swedish Causes of Death Certificate Register. The sample included 4215 patients with heart failure as the underlying cause of death. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to analyse data. Pain was the most prevalent symptom (64.0%), followed by anxiety (45.1%), shortness of breath (28.8%), and nausea (11.4%). Pain was the most often totally relieved (77.5%), followed by anxiety (68.4%), nausea (54.7%), and shortness of breath (37.1%). Key aspects of palliative care such as documented palliative care in the patient record, individual medication prescriptions by injection, symptom assessment with validated scales, documented end-of-life discussions with patients and/or family members, and external consultation were significantly associated with symptom relief. Relief of pain, shortness of breath, anxiety, and nausea were significantly better managed in nursing homes and hospice/inpatient palliative care compared with care in hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that key aspects of palliative care during the last week of life are significantly associated with symptom relief. Increased access to palliative care could provide a way to improve care during the last week of life for patients with heart failure. Home-based settings provided more symptom relief than hospitals, which may indicate that the latter focuses on treatments and saving lives rather than promoting life before death.