Supportive and palliative care indicators tool (SPICT™) in a Danish healthcare context: translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and content validation

Nomenclature in Palliative and Kidney Supportive Care: Not Just at the End-of-Life

The multidimensional view of disease is fundamental in the care of complex diseases such as chronic kidney disease (CKD). It is appropriate to define and unify concepts that allow the different professionals involved in care to provide a multidisciplinary approach tailored to the needs of each individual. Given the increasing incidence of CKD worldwide and the fact that the disease may progress at different rates, there is a need to establish personalized, comprehensive approaches for each patient and their families at an earlier stage. This approach goes beyond the simple control of uremic symptoms or congestion and consists of addressing not only symptomatic but also functional, social and coping problems at an early stage, facilitating decision making both in the CKD and in acute situations, potentially irreversible or interventions that do not improve life expectancy. To ensure excellence in care, it is important to assess indicators of palliative care and kidney support, such as the presence of advance and shared care planning, the inclusion of psychosocial, ethical, spiritual and bereavement care. This enables the provision of comprehensive, humanized, and high-quality care for patients and their families. Palliative and kidney care is not just about patients in the last days of life. Defining, unifying, and evaluating the concepts will allow them to be applied in a timely manner at each specific moment of the CKD trajectory.

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.

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.

Barriers to and facilitators of successful implementation of a palliative approach to care in primary care practices: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

Integrating a palliative approach to care into primary care is an emerging evidence-based practice. Despite the evidence, this type of care has not been widely adopted into primary care settings. The objective of this study was to examine the barriers to and facilitators of successful implementation of a palliative approach to care in primary care practices by applying an implementation science framework.

DESIGN

This convergent mixed methods study analysed semistructured interviews and expression of interest forms to evaluate the implementation of a protocol, linked to implementation strategies, for a palliative approach to care called Early Palliation through Integrated Care (EPIC) in three primary care practices. This study assessed barriers to and facilitators of implementation of EPIC and was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A framework analysis approach was used during the study to determine the applicability of CFIR constructs and domains.

SETTING

Primary care practices in Canada. Interviews were conducted between September 2020 and November 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

10 individuals were interviewed, who were involved in implementing EPIC. Three individuals from each practice were reinterviewed to clarify emerging themes.

RESULTS

Overall, there were implementation barriers at multiple levels that caused some practices to struggle. However, barriers were mitigated when practices had the following facilitators: (1) a high level of intra-practice collaboration, (2) established practices with organisational structures that enhanced communications, (3) effective leveraging of EPIC project supports to transition care, (4) perceptions that EPIC was an opportunity to make a long-term change in their approach to care as opposed to a limited term project and (5) strong practice champions.

CONCLUSIONS

Future implementation work should consider assessing facilitators identified in our results to better gauge primary care pre-implementation readiness. In addition, providing primary care practices with support to help offset the additional work of implementing innovations and networking opportunities where they can share strategies may improve implementation success.

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.

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.

Intensive Care Unit Care of a Patient with Cirrhosis

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Common indications for admission to ICU include one or more reasons of sepsis, shock due to any cause, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, and altered mentation either due to hepatic encephalopathy, alcohol withdrawal/intoxication, or metabolic encephalopathy. The appropriate critical care of an individual can determine the outcomes of these sick patients. The Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability (ABCD) approach to a patient admitted to ICU includes airway, breathing, circulation, and disability management. In this review, the authors discuss the common indications for ICU admission in a patient with cirrhosis and also their management.