Palliative Referrals in Advanced Cancer Patients: Utilizing the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool and Rothman Index

Implementation and evaluation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT™) in acute care

OBJECTIVES

The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT™) has been used to identify patients at risk of deteriorating and dying within 1 year. Early identification and integration of advance care planning (ACP) provides the opportunity for a better quality of life for patients. The aims of this study were to identify the number of patients who were SPICT™ positive; their mortality rates at 6 and 12 months of the SPICT™ assessment; and level of adherence to ACP documentation.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of the Supportive and Palliative Care database was conducted at an acute aged care precinct in a major metropolitan tertiary referral hospital in New South Wales, Australia. Data comprising demographics, clinical conditions, SPICT™ positivity and compliance with ACP documentation were collected. SPICT™-positive patients and mortality were tracked at 6 and 12 months, respectively.

RESULTS

Data from 153 patients were collected. The mean age of the patients was 84.1 (±7.8) years, and the length of hospital stay was 10 (±24.7) (range 1-269) days. Approximately 37% were from residential care, and 80% had family deciding on their care. About 15% died during hospitalisation, and 48% were discharged to a care facility. The ACP documentation showed various levels of completion. Mortality rates at 6 and 12 months were 36% and 39%, respectively. Most patients (99%) were SPICT™-positive, with indicators correlating with higher mortality rates at both follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

The study emphasises the critical need for addressing ACP and palliative care among older patients with life-limiting conditions. It underscores the importance of timely discussions, documentation, and cessation of futile interventions.

Palliative care screening tools and patient outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Palliative care (PC) refers to providing patients with physical, psychological, mental, and other care and humanistic care services in a multidisciplinary collaborative mode with end-of-stage patients and family members as the centre. The PC screening tool (PCST) was developed to identify individuals who may benefit from PC services and is widely assumed to improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose is to understand which specific PCST has been applied to clinical patients and to analyse and summarise the impact of using these tools on patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles published on PCST was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and MEDLINE in January 2024. All original research articles on PCST fulfilling the following eligibility criteria were included (1) utilisation and evaluation of tools was the primary objective and (2) at least one patient outcome was reported.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were included, 12 studies used a prospective study, 4 studies used a non-RCT and 6 studies used an RCT. The studies were heterogeneous regarding study characteristics, especially patient outcomes. In total, 24 different patient outcomes were measured, of which 16 outcomes measured in 12 studies significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the majority of included studies reported that implementing PCST can improve patient outcomes to some extent, especially when used to improve in reducing hospitalisation time and patient readmission rate. However, there is a lack of high-quality research on this widely used screening tool.

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.

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 for Palliative Care Need in Oncology: Validation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

CONTEXT

Leading oncology societies recommend monitoring symptoms and support needs through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but their use for assessing specialist palliative care (SPC) need has not yet been explored. Research on SPC integration has focused on staff-assessed screening tools, which are time-consuming.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) and NCCN Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT) in identifying need for SPC in patients with incurable cancer.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, patients with incurable cancer (prognosis <2 years) completed PROMs. In an independent process, the palliative care consultation service (PCCS) assessed the need for SPC in each patient through multiprofessional case review, and this was used as the reference standard. ROC analyses were employed to determine diagnostic validity.

RESULTS

Of the 208 participants, 71 (34.1 %) were classified as having SPC need by the PCCS. Aiming for a minimum sensitivity of 80%, a cut-off of ≥2 items with high/very high burden in the IPOS resulted in a 90.2% sensitivity (specificity = 50; AUC = 0.791; CI 95%= 0.724-0.858). A cut-off of ≥5 resulted in a sensitivity of 80 % for NCCN DT (specificity = 49.5 %; AUC = 0.687; CI 95% = 0.596-0.777).

CONCLUSION

PROMs are useful for identifying SPC need in cancer patients. Their implementation might facilitate timely integration of SPC. Future research should focus on an integrated assessment approach with PROMs that combines the requirements of the different specialties to save patient and staff resources.

Palliative Care in the Community: The Greek Version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT™)

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Systematic identification of persons with palliative care needs constitutes a major challenge for promoting palliative care in all levels of the health system, including primary care. The aim of this study was to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and content validate Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) for use in the Greek primary care context. Secondary objectives were to probe the use of SPICT-GR in exemplary case vignettes, to discuss the clarity and comprehensibility of its content as well as the appropriateness, acceptability, and feasibility of the tool within the Greek primary care.

METHODS

The Greek translation and cross-cultural adaptation of SPICT™ followed World Health Organization recommendations for translation and adaptation of instruments. For this purpose a working group was set up consisting of 2 senior researchers, a primary care professional with postgraduate training in Palliative Medicine and a general practitioner (GP) with special interest in primary palliative care. Three focus groups comprised of health professionals (n = 23) working in primary care settings participated in the pilot testing phase. Participants also completed a questionnaire including rating their perceptions on tool's utility and feasibility as well as on the clarity and relevance of its items. Thematic analysis was used for focus groups discussions on how the tool was perceived and interpreted by health professionals in a Greek healthcare context and descriptive statistics for the quantitative analysis of the questionnaire data.

RESULTS

The majority assessed the tool as useful (65%), considered its implementation in primary care as feasible (91%) and rated its items as "relevant" or "very relevant" and "clear" or "very clear." Three themes emerged from focus groups discussions: Guiding clinical practice and facilitating collaboration; promoting comprehensive care and awareness for palliative care; applicability in and suitability for primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

SPICT-GR™ was identified as a practical and applicable tool for primary care, a source of guidance for the comprehensive identification of patients' palliative care needs, promoting awareness on palliative care and facilitating a shared language among health care professionals.

Interrater agreement of multi-professional case review as reference standard for specialist palliative care need: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

A wide variety of screening tools for the need for specialist palliative care (SPC) have been proposed for the use in oncology. However, as there is no established reference standard for SPC need to compare their results with, their sensitivity and specificity have not yet been determined. The aim of the study was to explore whether SPC need assessment by means of multi-professional case review has sufficient interrater agreement to be employed as a reference standard.

METHODS

Comprehensive case descriptions were prepared for 20 inpatients with advanced oncologic disease at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany). All cases were presented to the palliative care teams of three different hospitals in independent, multi-professional case review sessions. The teams assessed whether patients had support needs in nine categories and subsequently concluded SPC need (yes / no). Interrater agreement regarding SPC need was determined by calculating Fleiss' Kappa.

RESULTS

In 17 out of 20 cases the three teams agreed regarding their appraisal of SPC need (substantial interrater agreement: Fleiss' Kappa κ = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0; p < 0.001)). The number of support needs was significantly lower for patients who all teams agreed had no SPC need than for those with agreed SPC need.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed expert case review process shows sufficient reliability to be used as a reference standard. Key elements of the case review process (e.g. clear definition of SPC need, standardized review of the patients' support needs) and possible modifications to simplify the process are discussed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered 17.12.2020.

Comparison of the clinical characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) infected patients from a single hospitalist service

BACKGROUND

While existing evidence suggests less severe clinical manifestations and lower mortality are associated with the Omicron variant as compared to the Delta variant. However, these studies fail to control for differences in health systems facilities and providers. By comparing patients hospitalized on a single medical service during the Delta and Omicron surges we were able to conduct a more accurate comparison of the two varaints' clinical manifestations and outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 364 Omicron (BA.1) infected patients on a single hospitalist service and compared these findings to a retrospective analysis of 241 Delta variant infected patients managed on the same service. We examined differences in symptoms, laboratory measures, and clinical severity between the two variants and assessed potential risk drivers for case mortality.

FINDINGS

Patients infected with Omicron were older and had more underlying medical conditions increasing their risk of death. Although they were less severely ill and required less supplemental oxygen and dexamethasone, in-hospital mortality was similar to Delta cases, 7.14% vs. 4.98% for Delta (q-value = 0.38). Patients older than 60 years or with immunocompromised conditions had much higher risk of death during hospitalization, with estimated odds ratios of 17.46 (95% CI: 5.05, 110.51) and 2.80 (1.03, 7.08) respectively. Neither vaccine history nor variant type played a significant role in case fatality. The Rothman score, NEWS-2 score, level of neutrophils, level of care, age, and creatinine level at admission were highly predictive of in-hospital death.

INTERPRETATION

In hospitalized patients, the Omicron variant is less virulent than the Delta variant but is associated with a comparable mortality. Clinical and laboratory features at admission are informative about the risk of death.

Factors Associated With Inpatient Hospice Utilization Among Hospitalized Decedents With Comfort Measures Only Status

Background: Patients with serious illness may elect to transition their care to comfort measures only (CMO) while in the hospital. Although studies have shown that routine hospice care is underutilized, the rate of general inpatient hospice (GIP) use among CMO patients during their terminal admission remains unclear. Objectives: We sought to (1) examine the rate of GIP utilization and (2) identify factors associated with its use among hospitalized CMO decedents. Methods: CMO decedents in two academic, tertiary care hospitals in the United States who died between October 1, 2020 and October 31, 2021, were subgrouped based on their primary medical service (GIP vs. non-GIP) at the time of inpatient death. Data abstracted from the electronic health record included demographics, primary diagnosis codes, Rothman Index (RI), time of CMO order, ordering clinician type, time of death, and length of stay (LOS). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusting for relevant covariates. Results: Of 1475 CMO decedents, only 321 (n = 22%) patients received GIP. On multivariable analysis, CMO patients who died in an ICU were five times less likely (odds ratio [OR] = 0.18, confidence interval [95% CI] 0.11-0.29) to receive GIP. Every 10-point increase in RI raised the likelihood of receiving GIP by 59% (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.39-1.80). Conclusions: Most CMO decedents died in the hospital without GIP. Compared with GIP decedents, non-GIP decedents were less acutely ill. There was no difference in total LOS between the two groups. CMO decedents were much less likely to receive GIP in an ICU. The RI may help clinicians identify CMO patients who would benefit from GIP earlier in their terminal admission.

Evaluation of Clinical Predictors for Major Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: The Potential Role of the Rothman Index

Introduction

The Rothman Index (RI, PeraHealth, Inc. Charlotte, NC, USA) is a predictive model intended to provide continuous monitoring of a patient's clinical status. There is limited data to support its use in the risk stratification of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We hypothesized that low admission RI scores would correlate with higher rates of adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Medical records of adult patients admitted to a single 1,200-bed tertiary academic center were retrospectively reviewed for demographic data, baseline characteristics, RI scores, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), need for mechanical ventilation, and inpatient mortality. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA statistical software, version 17 (Stata Corp LLC, College Station, TX, USA). Continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test, and categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Median admission RI score for the entire cohort was 63.0 (IQR 45.0 - 77.1). The cohort was divided by admission RI into a low-risk group (RI ≥70; n=70) and a high-risk group (RI <70; n=107). Compared to patients with low-risk RI, patients with high-risk RI had higher mortality (95.2%, 95% CI: 85.8 - 105 vs 4.8%, 95% CI: -5 - 14.2, p < 0.01), were more likely to require ICU admission (90.2%, 95% CI: 81.9 - 98.5 vs 9.8%, 95% CI: 1.5 - 18.1, p < 0.01) and mechanical ventilation (89.7%, 95% CI: 78.3 - 101 vs 10.3%, 95% CI: -1 - 21.7, p < 0.01), and had a longer median hospital length of stay (12 days, 95% CI: 9 - 14 vs 5 days, 95% CI: 4 - 7, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

High-risk RI was associated with increased admission to the ICU, mechanical ventilation, and mortality. These results suggest that it may be used as a tool to aid provider judgment in the setting of COVID-19.

Association Between Postdischarge Medical Oncology Follow-Up Appointments and Downstream Health Care Use: A Single-Institution Experience

PURPOSE:

There is limited understanding of the role of postdischarge medical oncology follow-up during care transition periods. Our study describes the care transition patterns and the association between postdischarge medical oncology appointments and downstream health care use at a tertiary academic center.

METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 25,135 medical oncology admissions between 2018 and 2020 at Yale New Haven Hospital. We examined the association between postdischarge medical oncology appointment timing with 30-day all-cause readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits using multivariable logistic regression models and propensity score–matched analyses.

RESULTS:

Compared with admissions without appointment within 30 days, admissions with postdischarge medical oncology appointment within 30 days were associated with lower rates of all-cause 30-day readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.59; P < .001) and ED visit (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.59; P < .001). Admissions with appointment ≤ 14 days were associated with lower rates of 30-day readmission (OR = 0.28, 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.32; P < .001) and ED visit (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.63; P < .001) compared with those with appointment within 15-30 days. Similar patterns in health care use were seen with propensity score matching. Subgroup analyses of cancer types with the most admissions observed similar trends between 30-day readmission and ED visits with appointment timing.

CONCLUSION:

Timely postdischarge medical oncology appointments were associated with significantly lower likelihood of 30-day readmission and ED visits, suggesting a potential role for postdischarge follow-up as an intervention to decrease health care use.

Palliative Care and Life-Sustaining/Local Procedures in Colorectal Cancer in the United States Hospitals: A Ten-Year Perspective

Background

In recent years, palliative care utilization has been increasing while life-sustaining/local procedures have been declining at the end of life. Palliative care utilization widely varies based on tumor type. Limited information is available on inpatient palliative care in colorectal cancer.

Aims

This study investigated inpatient palliative care utilization and its association with patient demographics, hospital charges, and procedures among colorectal cancer patients admitted to US hospitals between 2008 and 2017. Receipt of life-sustaining and local procedures and surgeries were also investigated during the ten years.

Methods

Data were extracted from the National inpatient sample (NIS) database containing de-identified information from each hospitalization. Codes V66.7 for ICD-9-CM or Z51.5 for ICD-10-CM were used to find palliative care utilization. Data were analyzed using generalized regression with adjustment for variations in predictors. The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) was calculated for palliative care and procedures over time.

Results

Of the 487,027 colorectal cancer hospitalizations, only 6.04% utilized palliative care. This percentage significantly increased over time from 2.3% in 2008 to 9.3% in 2017 (P<0.0001). Palliative care utilization sizably decreased hospital charges by $18,010 per hospitalization (P<0.0001) and was positively associated with female gender, severe disease, and age over 80 years (P≤ 0.05). Palliative care utilization was inversely associated with using life-sustaining and local procedures and surgeries (P<0.0001). Life-sustaining procedures (intubation, infusion of concentrate nutrients, dialysis, and blood transfusion) and surgeries were decreased over time (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Palliative care utilization increased over time and was inversely associated with hospital charges and performing procedures among colorectal cancer patients. Our findings warrant further research and interventions to increase palliative care utilization in colorectal cancer.