Instruments for the identification of patients in need of palliative care in the hospital setting: a systematic review of measurement properties

Use of the supportive and palliative care indicators tool (SPICT™) for end-of-life discussions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

In order to mitigate the distress associated with life limiting conditions it is essential for all health professionals not just palliative care specialists to identify people with deteriorating health and unmet palliative care needs and to plan care. The SPICT™ tool was designed to assist with this.

AIM

The aim was to examine the impact of the SPICT™ on advance care planning conversations and the extent of its use in advance care planning for adults with chronic life-limiting illness.

METHODS

In this scoping review records published between 2010 and 2024 reporting the use of the SPICT™, were included unless the study aim was to evaluate the tool for prognostication purposes. Databases searched were EBSCO Medline, PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, APA Psych Info, ProQuest One Theses and Dissertations Global.

RESULTS

From the search results 26 records were reviewed, including two systematic review, two theses and 22 primary research studies. Much of the research was derived from primary care settings. There was evidence that the SPICT™ assists conversations about advance care planning specifically discussion and documentation of advance care directives, resuscitation plans and preferred place of death. The SPICT™ is available in at least eight languages (many versions have been validated) and used in many countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the SPICT™ appears to assist advance care planning. It has yet to be widely used in acute care settings and has had limited use in countries beyond Europe. There is a need for further research to validate the tool in different languages.

Screening instruments for early identification of unmet palliative care needs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The early detection of individuals who require palliative care is essential for the timely initiation of palliative care services. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) Identify the screening instruments used by health professionals to promote early identification of patients who may benefit from palliative care; and (2) Assess the psychometric properties and clinical performance of the instruments.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, CNKI and Wanfang from inception to May 2023. We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments to assess the methodological quality of the development process for the instruments. The clinical performance of the instruments was assessed by narrative summary or meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted where necessary. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool.

RESULTS

We included 31 studies that involved seven instruments. Thirteen studies reported the development and validation process of these instruments and 18 studies related to assessment of clinical performance of these instruments. The content validity of the instruments was doubtful or inadequate because of very low to moderate quality evidence. The pooled sensitivity (Se) ranged from 60.0% to 73.8%, with high heterogeneity (I2 of 88.15% to 99.36%). The pooled specificity (Sp) ranges from 70.4% to 90.2%, with high heterogeneity (I2 of 96.81% to 99.94%). The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) had better performance in hospitals than in general practice settings (Se=79.8% vs 45.3%, p=0.004; Sp=59.1% vs 97.0%, p=0.000).

CONCLUSION

The clinical performance of existing instruments in identifying patients with palliative care needs early ranged from poor to reasonable. The SPICT is used most commonly, has better clinical performance than other instruments but performs better in hospital settings than in general practice settings.

Identifying Nursing Home Residents with Unmet Palliative Care Needs: A Systematic Review of Screening Tool Measurement Properties

OBJECTIVES

Despite common use of palliative care screening tools in other settings, the performance of these tools in the nursing home has not been well established; therefore, the purpose of this review is to (1) identify palliative care screening tools validated for nursing home residents and (2) critically appraise, compare, and summarize the quality of measurement properties.

DESIGN

Systematic review of measurement properties consistent with Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (Ovid) were searched from inception to May 2022. Studies that (1) reported the development or evaluation of a palliative care screening tool and (2) sampled older adults living in a nursing home were included.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened, selected, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

We identified only 1 palliative care screening tool meeting COSMIN criteria, the NECesidades Paliativas (NEC-PAL, equivalent to palliative needs in English), but evidence for use with nursing home residents was of low quality. The NEC-PAL lacked robust testing of measurement properties such as reliability, sensitivity, and specificity in the nursing home setting. Construct validity through hypothesis testing was adequate but only reported in 1 study. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to guide practice. Broadening the criteria further, this review reports on 3 additional palliative care screening tools identified during the search and screening process but which were excluded during full-text review for various reasons.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Given the unique care environment of nursing homes, we recommend future studies to validate available tools and develop new instruments specifically designed for nursing home use. In the meantime, we recommend that clinicians consider the evidence presented here and choose a screening instrument that best meets their needs.