Differences in primary palliative care between people with organ failure and people with cancer: An international mortality follow-back study using quality indicators

The influence of care place and diagnosis on care communication at the end of life: bereaved family members' perspective

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of care place and diagnosis on care communication during the last 3 months of life for people with advanced illness, from the bereaved family members' perspective.

METHOD

A retrospective survey design using the VOICES(SF) questionnaire with a sample of 485 bereaved family members (aged: 20-90 years old, 70% women) of people who died in hospital was employed to meet the study aim.

RESULTS

Of the deceased people, 79.2% had at some point received care at home, provided by general practitioners (GPs) (52%), district nurses (36.7%), or specialized palliative home care (17.9%), 27.4% were cared for in a nursing home and 15.7% in a specialized palliative care unit. The likelihood of bereaved family members reporting that the deceased person was treated with dignity and respect by the staff was lowest in nursing homes (OR: 0.21) and for GPs (OR: 0.37). A cancer diagnosis (OR: 2.36) or if cared for at home (OR: 2.17) increased the likelihood of bereaved family members reporting that the deceased person had been involved in decision making regarding care and less likely if cared for in a specialized palliative care unit (OR: 0.41). The likelihood of reports of unwanted decisions about the care was higher if cared for in a nursing home (OR: 1.85) or if the deceased person had a higher education (OR: 2.40).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

This study confirms previous research about potential inequalities in care at the end of life. The place of care and diagnosis influenced the bereaved family members' reports on whether the deceased person was treated with respect and dignity and how involved the deceased person was in decision making regarding care.

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

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the measurement properties of the available instruments used by clinicians for identifying adults in need of general or specialized palliative care in hospital settings.

INTRODUCTION

Identification of patients in need of palliative care has been recognized as an area where many health care professionals need guidance. Differentiating between patients who require general palliative care and patients with more complex conditions who need specialized palliative care is particularly challenging.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We included development and validation studies that reported on measurement properties (eg, content validity, reliability, or responsiveness) of instruments used by clinicians for identifying adult patients (>18 years and older) in need of palliative care in hospital settings.

METHODS

Studies published until March 2020 were searched in four databases: Embase.com, Medline Ovid, PubMed, and CINAHL EBSCO. Unpublished studies were searched in Google Scholar, government websites, hospice websites, the Library Network of Western Switzerland, and WorldCat. The search was not restricted by language; however, only studies published in English or French were eligible for inclusion. The title and abstracts of the studies were screened by two independent reviewers against the inclusion criteria. Full-text studies were reviewed for inclusion by two independent reviewers. The quality of the measurement properties of all included studies were assessed independently by two reviewers according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.

RESULTS

Out of the 23 instruments identified, four instruments were included, as reported in six studies: the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC) criteria, the Necesidades Paliativas (NECPAL), the Palliative Care Screening Tool (PCST), and the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT). The overall psychometric quality of all four instruments was insufficient according to the COSMIN criteria, with the main deficit being poor construct description during development.

CONCLUSIONS

For the early identification of patients needing palliative care in hospital settings, there is poor quality and incomplete evidence according to the COSMIN criteria for the four available instruments. This review highlights the need for further development of the construct being measured. This may be done by conducting additional studies on these instruments or by developing a new instrument for the identification of patients in need of palliative care that addresses the current gaps in construct and structural validity.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42020150074.

Measurement Properties of ID-PALL, A New Instrument for the Identification of Patients With General and Specialized Palliative Care Needs

CONTEXT

To improve access to palliative care, identification of patients in need of general or specialized palliative care is necessary. To our knowledge, no available identification instrument makes this distinction. ID-PALL is a screening instrument developed to differentiate between these patient groups.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the structural and criterion validity and the inter-rater agreement of ID-PALL.

METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, nurses and physicians assessed medical patients hospitalized for 2 to 5 days in two tertiary hospitals in Switzerland using ID-PALL. For the criterion validity, these assessments were compared to a clinical gold standard evaluation performed by palliative care specialists. Structural validity, internal consistency and inter-rater agreement were assessed.

RESULTS

2232 patients were assessed between January and December 2018, 97% by nurses and 50% by physicians. The variances for ID-PALL G and S are explained by two factors, the first one explaining most of the variance in both cases. For ID-PALL G, sensitivity ranged between 0.80 and 0.87 and specificity between 0.56 and 0.59. ID-PALL S sensitivity ranged between 0.82 and 0.94, and specificity between 0.35 and 0.64. A cut-off value of 1 delivered the optimal values for patient identification. Cronbach's alpha was 0.78 for ID-PALL G and 0.67 for ID-PALL S. The agreement rate between nurses and physicians was 71.5% for ID-PALL G and 64.6% for ID-PALL S.

CONCLUSION

ID-PALL is a promising screening instrument allowing the early identification of patients in need of general or specialized palliative care. It can be used by nurses and physicians without a specialized palliative care training. Further testing of the finalized clinical version appears warranted.

Data from emergency medicine palliative care access (EMPallA): a randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of specialty outpatient versus telephonic palliative care of older adults with advanced illness presenting to the emergency department

Background

The Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial is a large, multicenter, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial in emergency department (ED) patients comparing two models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. This report aims to: 1) report baseline demographic and quality of life (QOL) data for the EMPallA cohort, 2) identify the association between illness type and baseline QOL while controlling for other factors, and 3) explore baseline relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness.

Methods

Patients aged 50+ years with advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumor) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association Class III or IV heart failure, end stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate < 15 mL/min/m², or Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Stage III, IV, or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease defined as FEV₁ < 50%) are eligible for enrollment. Baseline data includes self-reported demographics, QOL measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), loneliness measured by the Three-Item UCLA Loneliness Scale, and symptom burden measured by the Edmonton Revised Symptom Assessment Scale. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic variables, a linear regression model measured the importance of illness type in predicting QOL, and chi-square tests of independence were used to quantify relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness.

Results

Between April 2018 and April 3, 2020, 500 patients were enrolled. On average, end-stage organ failure patients had lower QOL as measured by the FACT-G scale than cancer patients with an estimated difference of 9.6 points (95% CI: 5.9, 13.3), and patients with multiple conditions had a further reduction of 7.4 points (95% CI: 2.4, 12.5), when adjusting for age, education level, race, sex, immigrant status, presence of a caregiver, and hospital setting. Symptom burden and loneliness were greater in end-stage organ failure than in cancer.

Conclusions

The EMPallA trial is enrolling a diverse sample of ED patients. Differences by illness type in QOL, symptom burden, and loneliness demonstrate how distinct disease trajectories manifest in the ED.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03325985. Registered October 30, 2017.

Effectiveness of two types of palliative home care in cancer and non-cancer patients: A retrospective population-based study using claims data

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness of different types of palliative homecare is sparsely researched internationally-despite its potential to inform necessary decisions in palliative care infrastructure development. In Germany, specialized palliative homecare delivered by multi-professional teams has increased in recent years and factors beyond medical need seem to drive its involvement and affect the application of primary palliative care, delivered by general practitioners who are supported by nursing services.

AIM

To compare effectiveness of primary palliative care and specialized palliative homecare in reducing potentially aggressive interventions at the end-of-life in cancer and non-cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective population-based study with claims data from 95,962 deceased adults in Germany in 2016 using multivariable regression analyses.

SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS

Patients having received primary palliative care or specialized palliative homecare (alone or in addition to primary palliative care), for at least 14 days before death, differentiating between cancer and non-cancer patients.

RESULTS

Rates of potentially aggressive interventions in most indicators were higher in primary palliative care than in specialized palliative homecare (p < 0.01), in both cancer and non-cancer patients: death in hospital (odds ratio (OR) 4.541), hospital care (OR 2.720), intensive care treatment (OR 6.749), chemotherapy (OR 2.173), and application of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (OR 4.476), but not for parenteral nutrition (OR 0.477).

CONCLUSION

Specialized palliative homecare is more strongly associated with reduction of potentially aggressive interventions than primary palliative care in the last days of life. Future research should identify elements of specialized palliative homecare applicable for more effective primary palliative care, too. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00014730).

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

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the psychometric properties of available clinician-reported instruments developed to identify patients in need of general and specialized palliative care in acute care settings.

INTRODUCTION

Identification of patients in need of palliative care has been recognized as an area where many health care professionals need guidance. Differentiating between patients who require general palliative care and patients with more complex conditions who need specialized palliative care is particularly challenging. To our knowledge, no dedicated instruments are available to date to assist health care professionals to make this identification.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Included studies will report on i) instruments aiming to identify patients in need of palliative care, ii) adult patients in need of palliative care in acute-care settings, iii) clinician-reported outcome measures, or iv) the development process or one or more of its measurement properties. Studies conducted in intensive care units, emergency departments, or nursing homes will be excluded.

METHODS

We will search for studies published in English and French in a variety of sources, including Embase, Medline Ovid SP, PubMed, CINAHL EBSCO, Google Scholar, government websites, and hospice websites. All citations will be screened and selected by two independent reviewers. Data extraction, quality assessment, and syntheses of included studies will be performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42020150074.

Primary care service use by end-of-life cancer patients: a nationwide population-based cohort study in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

End of life (EoL) care becomes more complex and increasingly takes place in the community, but there is little data on the use of general practice (GP) services to guide care improvement. This study aims to determine the trends and factors associated with GP consultation, prescribing and referral to other care services amongst cancer patients in the last year of life.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of cancer patients who died in 2000-2014, based on routinely collected primary care data (the Clinical Practice Research DataLink, CPRD) covering a representative sample of the population in the United Kingdom. Outcome variables were number of GP consultations (primary), number of prescriptions and referral to other care services (yes vs no) in the last year of life. Explanatory variables included socio-demographics, clinical characteristics and the status of palliative care needs recognised or not. The association between outcome and explanatory variables were evaluated using multiple-adjusted risk ratio (aRR).

RESULTS

Of 68,523 terminal cancer patients, 70% were aged 70+, 75% had comorbidities and 45.5% had palliative care needs recognised. In the last year of life, a typical cancer patient had 43 GP consultations (Standard deviation (SD): 31.7; total = 3,031,734), 71.5 prescriptions (SD: 68.0; total = 5,074,178), and 21(SD: 13.0) different drugs; 58.0% of patients had at least one referral covering all main clinical specialities. More comorbid conditions, prostate cancer and having palliative care needs recognised were associated with more primary care consultations, more prescriptions and a higher chance of referral (aRRs 1.07-2.03). Increasing age was related to fewer consultations (aRRs 0.77-0.96), less prescriptions (aRR 1.09-1.44), and a higher chance of referral (aRRs 1.08-1.16) but less likely to have palliative care needs recognised (aRRs 0.53-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

GPs are very involved in end of life care of cancer patients, most of whom having complex care needs, i.e. older age, comorbidity and polypharmacy. This highlights the importance of enhancing primary palliative care skills among GPs and the imperative of greater integration of primary care with other healthcare professionals including oncologists, palliative care specialists, geriatricians and pharmacists. Research into the potential of deprescribing is warranted. Older patients have poorer access to both primary care and palliative care need to be addressed in future practices.

IDentification of patients in need of general and specialised PALLiative care (ID-PALL©): item generation, content and face validity of a new interprofessional screening instrument

BACKGROUND

Early identification of patients requiring palliative care is a major public health concern. A growing number of instruments exist to help professionals to identify these patients, however, thus far, none have been thoroughly assessed for criterion validity. In addition, no currently available instruments differentiate between patients in need of general vs. specialised palliative care, and most are primarily intended for use by physicians. This study aims to develop and rigorously validate a new interprofessional instrument allowing identification of patients in need of general vs specialised palliative care.

METHODS

The instrument development involved four steps: i) literature review to determine the concept to measure; ii) generation of a set of items; iii) review of the initial set of items by experts to establish the content validity; iv) administration of the items to a sample of the target population to establish face validity. We conducted a Delphi process with experts in palliative care to accomplish step 3 and sent a questionnaire to nurses and physicians non-specialised in palliative care to complete step 4. The study was conducted in the French and Italian-speaking regions of Switzerland. An interdisciplinary committee of clinical experts supervised all steps.

RESULTS

The literature review confirmed the necessity of distinguishing between general and specialised palliative care needs and of adapting clinical recommendations to these different needs. Thirty-six nurses and physicians participated in the Delphi process and 28 were involved in the face validity assessment. The Delphi process resulted in two lists: a 7-item list to identify patients in need of general PC and an 8-item list to identify specialised PC needs. The content and face validity were deemed to be acceptable by both the expert and target populations.

CONCLUSION

This instrument makes a significant contribution to the identification of patients with palliative care needs as it has been designed to differentiate between general and specialised palliative care needs. Moreover, diagnostic data is not fundamental to the use of the instrument, thus facilitating its use by healthcare professionals other than physicians, in particular nurses. Internal and criterion validity assessments are ongoing and essential before wider dissemination of the instrument.

Primary palliative care for older people in three European countries: a mortality follow-back quality study

BACKGROUND

Many older people with serious chronic illnesses experience complex health problems for which palliative care is indicated. We aimed to examine the quality of primary palliative care for people aged 65-84 years and those 85 years and older who died non-suddenly in three European countries.

METHODS

This is a nationwide representative mortality follow-back study. General practitioners (GPs) belonging to epidemiological surveillance networks in Belgium (BE), Italy (IT) and Spain (ES) (2013-2015) registered weekly all deaths in their practices. We included deaths of people aged 65 and excluded sudden deaths judged by GPs. We applied a validated set of quality indicators.

RESULTS

GPs registered 3496 deaths, of which 2329 were non-sudden (1126 aged 65-84, 1203 aged 85+). GPs in BE (reference category) reported higher scores than IT across almost all indicators. Differences with ES were not consistent. The score in BE particularly differed from IT on GP-patient communication (aged 65-84: 61% in BE vs 20% in IT (OR=0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20) aged 85+: 47% in BE vs 9% in IT (OR=0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.16)). Between BE and ES, we identified a large difference in involvement of palliative care services (aged 65-84: 62% in BE vs 89% in ES (OR=4.81, 95% CI 2.41 to 9.61) aged 85+: 61% in BE vs 77% in ES (OR=3.1, 95% CI 1.71 to 5.53)).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable country differences were identified in the quality of primary palliative care for older people. The data suggest room for improvement across all countries, particularly regarding pain measurement, GP-patient communication and multidisciplinary meetings.

Quality of primary palliative care for older people with mild and severe dementia: an international mortality follow-back study using quality indicators

Background

measuring the quality of primary palliative care for older people with dementia in different countries is important to identify areas where improvements can be made.

Objective

using quality indicators (QIs), we systematically investigated the overall quality of primary palliative care for older people with dementia in three different countries.

Design/setting

a mortality follow-back survey through nation- and region-wide representative Sentinel Networks of General Practitioners (GPs) in Belgium, Italy and Spain. GPs registered all patient deaths in their practice. We applied a set of nine QIs developed through literature review and expert consensus.

Subjects

patients aged 65 or older, who died non-suddenly with mild or severe dementia as judged by GPs (n = 874).

Results

findings showed significantly different QI scores between Belgium and Italy for regular pain measurement (mild dementia: BE = 44%, IT = 12%, SP = 50% | severe dementia: BE = 41%, IT = 9%, SP = 47%), acceptance of approaching death (mild: BE = 59%, IT = 48%, SP = 33% | severe: BE = 41%, IT = 21%, SP = 20%), patient-GP communication about illness (mild: BE = 42%, IT = 6%, SP = 20%) and involvement of specialised palliative services (mild: BE = 60%, IT = 20%, SP = 77%). The scores in Belgium differed from Italy and Spain for patient-GP communication about medical treatments (mild: BE = 34%, IT = 12%, SP = 4%) and repeated multidisciplinary consultations (mild: BE = 39%, IT = 5%, SP = 8% | severe: BE = 36%, IT = 10%, SP = 8%). The scores for relative-GP communication, patient death outside hospitals and bereavement counselling did not differ between countries.

Conclusion

while the countries studied differed considerably in the overall quality of primary palliative care, they have similarities in room for improvement, in particular, pain measurement and prevention of avoidable hospitalisations.