Content uploaded by David L O'Riordan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David L O'Riordan on Aug 25, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Changes in Palliative Care Consultation Services in California Hospitals from 2007 to 2011
Abstract and Figures
Background:
The number of palliative care consultation services is growing, yet little is known about how program characteristics change over time.
Objective:
Compare changes in the characteristics of palliative care programs and palliative care consultation services in 2007 and 2011.
Design:
We surveyed all hospitals in California in 2011 and compared palliative care program and palliative care consultation service characteristics with survey results from 2007.
Results:
There were 41 new palliative care programs since 2007; 17 programs closed between 2007 and 2011. Hospital characteristics associated with the closure of a palliative care program included a hospital size of 1-149 beds versus 150 or more (p=0.03), for-profit status (p=0.001), and having no system affiliation (p=0.0001). The prevalence of palliative care consultation services was 33% in 2007 and 37% in 2011 (p=0.3). At both time periods nearly all palliative care consultation services (98%) were available onsite during weekday business hours and only half were available at other times (p=0.4). There was an increase (p=0.002) in nurse/physician full-time equivalent (FTE; 2007, mean=1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.3-1.7; 2011, mean=1.9; 95% CI=1.6-2.2) but fewer teams reported having social workers (58% versus 80%, p=0.002) and chaplains (58% versus 77%, p=0.0001) in 2011. Over half of the palliative care consultation services reported seeing less than 50% of patients who would benefit from a consultation (2007: 59%, 2011=50%, p=0.2), yet most also reported struggling to cope with patient volume (2007: 62%; 2011: 66%, p=0.5).
Conclusions:
Fewer than half of hospitals in California offer a palliative care program and many close over time. Making palliative care consultation services a condition of participation by insurers could make hospital palliative care consultation services universal. Mechanisms need to be established to improve staffing levels, maintain the interdisciplinary nature of palliative care consultation services, and accommodate demand for services.
Figures - uploaded by David L O'Riordan
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by David L O'Riordan
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Across three distinct comparison groups, we demonstrate that a comprehensive SO program comprised of both billable (physician and nurse practitioner) visits and nonbillable encounters (nurse, social work, navigation, nutrition) is associated with fewer inpatient hospital admissions, ED visits, and lower total medical costs for patients with advanced cancer. [14][15][16][17] Our findings suggest that SO programs can improve the quality The risk score is a measure used to predict or explain the utilization of health care services, health care efficiency, or health care cost. ...
Background
Supportive oncology (SO) care reduces symptom severity, admissions, and costs in patients with advanced cancer. This study examines the impact of SO care on utilization and costs.
Methods
Retrospective analysis of utilization and costs comparing patients enrolled in SO versus three comparison cohorts who did not receive SO. Using claims, the authors estimated differences in health care utilization and cost between the treatment group and comparison cohorts. The treatment group consisting of patients treated for cancer at an National Cancer Institute‐designated cancer center who received SO between January 2018 and December 2019 were compared to an asynchronous cohort that received cancer care before January 2018 ( n = 60), a contemporaneous cohort with palliative care receiving SO care from other providers in the Southeastern Pennsylvania region during the program period ( n = 86), and a contemporaneous cohort without palliative care consisting of patients at other cancer centers who were eligible for but did not receive SO care ( n = 393).
Results
At 30, 60, and 90 days post‐enrollment into SO, the treatment group had between 27% and 70% fewer inpatient admissions and between 16% and 54% fewer emergency department visits ( p < .05) compared to non‐SO cohorts. At 90 days following enrollment in SO care, total medical costs were between 4.4% and 24.5% lower for the treatment group across all comparisons ( p < .05).
Conclusions
SO is associated with reduced admissions, emergency department visits, and total costs in advanced cancer patients. Developing innovative reimbursement models could be a cost‐effective approach to improve care of patients with advanced cancer.
... 9 Historically, numerous challenges for palliative care teams have been documented, including limited funding, palliative care program closures, a workforce shortage, and provider burnout. [10][11][12][13][14] Given the pandemic's financial strain on the US healthcare system and the challenges documented for palliative care teams before the pandemic, there are concerns for the future stability of the field of palliative care. ...
Background: Palliative care programs have played a significant role during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the financial impact of the pandemic and operational challenges for palliative care programs have raised concerns for their future viability. Objectives: To explore palliative care program leaders' perceptions of the future viability of their programs in the context of the pandemic and inform future educational and program development. Methods: Surveys were sent to 1430 specialist palliative care program leaders, identified through the Center to Advance Palliative Care's contact lists, via email in May 2020 and January 2021. Leaders were asked why they were or were not concerned about the viability of their palliative care programs. Qualitative content analysis was applied to determine themes. Results: We received 440 responses. Most programs served hospital settings and were geographically located across all US regions. We identified four themes: 1) The importance of being valued by organizational leadership and peers, 2) The importance of adequate and supported palliative care staff, 3) The pandemic validated and accelerated the need for palliative care, and 4) The pandemic perpetuated organizational financial concerns. Conclusion: Findings provide insights about palliative care program viability from the perspective of program leaders during a global pandemic. Technical assistance to support palliative care teams and their relationships with stakeholders, methods to measure the impact of peer support, efforts to educate administrators about the value of palliative care, and efforts to reduce burnout are needed to sustain palliative care programs into the future.
... Combined with our findings on program stability and burnout risk, these results raise the concern that some PPC programs may already be at significant risk of closure or restructuring because of operational challenges. 29 Ensuring both the availability and financial sustainability of PPC programs will be critical to safeguarding ongoing high-quality care for seriously ill children and their families. PPC program staffing levels (FTE staff per 10 000 hospital admissions) by core palliative care discipline. ...
Background and objectives:
Pediatric palliative care (PPC) is integral to the care of children living with serious illnesses. Despite the growth in the number of established palliative care programs over the past decade, little is known about the current operational features of PPC programs across the country.
Methods:
The National Palliative Care Registry collects annualized data on palliative care programs' structures, processes, and staffing. Using data from the 2018 registry survey, we report on the operational features of inpatient PPC programs across the United States.
Results:
Fifty-four inpatient PPC programs submitted data about their operations. Programs reported a median of 3.8 full-time equivalent staff per 10 000 hospital admissions (range 0.7-12.1) across the core interdisciplinary team, yet few (37%) met the minimum standards of practice for staffing. Programs provided more annual consults if they were longer-standing, had more interdisciplinary full-time equivalent staff, offered 24/7 availability for patients and families, or were at larger hospitals. The majority of programs reported concern for burnout (63%) and an inability to meet clinical demand with available staffing (60%).
Conclusions:
There is considerable variability in PPC program operations and structure in hospitals. This study affirms the need for updated program standards and guidelines, as well as research that describes how different care delivery models impact outcomes for patients, families, staff, and health care systems. Future studies that further define the clinical demand, workload, and sustainability challenges of PPC programs are necessary to foster the provision of high-quality PPC and maintain a vital clinical workforce.
... Finally, there may be other aspects of care subject to volume-outcome relationships that confound the relationship between EGS volume and patient outcomes. One such potential confounder is the presence of a sustained palliative care program, a hospital attribute found to be much more prevalent among larger hospitals ([ 300 beds) [55]. It is possible that the improved operative outcomes observed in EGS patients at higher volume centers may simply be reflective of increased utilization of palliative care at these facilities and therefore a lower rate of high-risk surgeries. ...
Purpose of Review
This review outlines the current state of the literature regarding the effect of hospital emergency general surgery (EGS) volume on patient- and hospital-based outcomes.
Recent Findings
Recent evidence suggests that higher volume centers offer superior performance with respect to in-hospital mortality, a phenomenon that becomes more pronounced with increasingly complex or high-risk operations.
Summary
High-quality studies have demonstrated that hospital EGS volume is correlated with lower in-patient mortality. This finding has been demonstrated across individual EGS operations with increasing case complexity requiring higher volumes to demonstrate improved outcomes. There remains a knowledge gap in determining what specific factor of volume, such as surgeon volume or system experience or possibly a combination of the two, best explains the observed improvement in outcomes.
... Palliative care teams are known to have substantial differences in their operational characteristics, such as the amount of staffing and the composition of the palliative care team. [27][28][29] These differences may be associated with a palliative care program's effectiveness, because increased staffing has been associated with greater penetration of the palliative care service (defined by the number of consultations seen over the number of total admissions) and a shorter time to initial consultation. 29,30 Also, hospital cultures may follow different practices, particularly with respect to the use of life-sustaining therapies and delivery of end-of-life care. ...
Importance
The use of intensive care at the end of life continues to be common. Although the provision of palliative care has been advocated as a way to mitigate the use of high-intensity care, it is unknown whether implementation of hospital-based palliative care services is associated with reduced use of intensive care at the end of life.
Objective
To determine whether implementation of hospital-based palliative care services is associated with decreased intensive care unit (ICU) use during terminal hospitalizations.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This cohort study included 51 hospitals in New York State that either did or did not implement a palliative care program between 2008 and 2014. Hospitals that consistently had a palliative care program during the study period were excluded. Participants were adult patients who died during hospitalization. Data analysis was performed between January 2018 and July 2019.
Exposure
Implementation of a palliative care program.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was ICU use. A difference-in-differences analysis was performed using multilevel regression to assess the association between implementing a palliative care program and ICU use during terminal hospitalizations while adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and time trends.
Results
During the study period, 73 370 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.5 [14.1] years; 38 467 [52.4%] women) died during hospitalization, of whom 37 628 (51.3%) received care in hospitals that implemented palliative care services and 35 742 (48.7%) received care in a hospital without palliative care implementation. Patients who received care in hospitals after implementation of palliative care services were less likely to receive intensive care than patients admitted to the same hospitals before implementation (49.3% vs 52.8%; difference 3.5%; 95% CI, 2.5%-4.5%; P < .001). Compared with hospitals that never had a palliative care program, the implementation of palliative care was associated with a 10% reduction in ICU use during terminal hospitalizations (adjusted relative risk, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95; P < .001).
Conclusions and Relevance
The implementation of hospital-based palliative care services in New York State was associated with a modest reduction in ICU use during terminal hospitalizations.
It is crucial for palliative care teams to evaluate practices in assessing the risk of developing complicated grief among family members and caregivers of patients. A retrospective chart review of 99 patients seen by an inpatient palliative care team at an academic medical center was conducted to assess for documentation and prevalence of complicated grief risk factors. Factors included patients whose family are their primary caregiver, involvement of young children, mental health or substance use diagnoses in patients or their family members, a history of multiple losses, traumatic or sudden death. 64% of charts did not formally document bereavement assessment while 45% of families exhibited at least one risk factor for prolonged grief. This work suggests the need for increased education for PC providers on grief risk factors as well as the implementation of a formal screening assessment in order to best utilize limited psychosocial support resources to address needs.
Objective:
To determine the availability of palliative care programs in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis using the 2016 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey.
Setting and participants:
LTACHs in the United States.
Method:
We used descriptive analyses to compare the prevalence of palliative care programs in LTACHs across the United States in 2016. For LTACHs without a program, we also examined palliative care physician capacity in regions where those LTACHs resided to evaluate if expertise existed in those regions.
Results:
One-third (36.5%) of 405 LTACHs (50.6% response rate) self-reported having a palliative care program. Among LTACHs without palliative care, 42.4% were in regions with the highest palliative care physician capacity nationwide.
Conclusions and implications:
LTACHs care for patients with serious and prolonged illnesses, many of whom would benefit from palliative care. Despite this, our study finds that specialty palliative care is limited in LTACHs. The limited palliative care availability in LTACHs is mismatched with the needs of this seriously ill population. Greater focus on increasing palliative care in LTACHs is essential and may be feasible as 40% of LTACHs without a palliative care program were located in regions with the highest palliative care physician capacity.
Context
Understanding the unique needs of patients seen in clinic versus at home can help palliative care (PC) teams choose how to maximize available resources.
Objectives
To compare the characteristics and PC needs of patients seen by PC teams in clinic versus at home.
Methods
We analyzed data from the Palliative Care Quality Network between August 2016 and September 2019 and compared demographics, diagnosis, reason for referral, PC needs, functional status, self-reported symptoms, and patient-reported quality of life.
Results
Compared to patients receiving PC in clinic, patients receiving PC at home were more likely to be of age 80 years or older (odds ratio [OR] 7.5, 95% CI 5.0, 10.9, P < 0.0001), have lower functional status (mean Palliative Performance Scale score 53% vs. 68%, P < 0.0001), and were less likely to screen positive for needing pain management (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.22, 0.42, P < 0.0001) or other symptom management (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41, 0.90, P = 0.01). Patients receiving care at home were more likely to be referred for care planning (goals of care discussions or advance care planning) (OR 11.5, 95% CI 8.3, 16.0 P < 0.0001) and patient/family support (OR 5.9, 95% CI 4.2, 8.3, P < 0.0001).
Conclusion
Patients seen by PC teams at home had worse function and were more likely to be referred for care planning, while patients seen in clinic had more PC needs related to pain and symptom management. Despite these differences, both populations have significant PC needs that support routine assessment and require appropriately staffed interdisciplinary teams to address these needs.
Objective:
Develop and pilot-test a nurse-led primary palliative care intervention for patients with advanced hematologic malignancies.
Background:
Nurse-led primary palliative care interventions may improve outpatient palliative care provision for patients with advanced hematologic malignancies.
Methods:
This two-phase, single-arm pilot study involved patients with recurrent or resistant hematologic malignancies, their caregivers, and oncology clinicians at two US-based urban, university-affiliated oncology clinics. Measurements included feasibility (enrollment rates, intervention fidelity, and outcome assessment rates) and acceptability (patient, caregiver, and clinician surveys).
Results:
In Phase 1 we developed and implemented an oncology nurse-led primary palliative care intervention for patients with recurrent or resistant hematologic malignancies and their caregivers. In Phase 2, we tested feasibility and acceptability. Twenty-six patient participants enrolled. Consent-to-approach rate was 78% and enrolled-to-consent rate was 84%. All enrolled participants received the intervention per protocol. Sixty-nine percent of patients and 100% of caregivers reported that the intervention helped them better understand the patient's illness and cope. Seventy-five percent of oncologists reported that the intervention improved their patients' quality of care, and 25% reported that it helped them take better care of patients.
Conclusions:
Although our pilot of oncology nurse-led primary palliative care for patients with advanced hematologic malignancies met some of its secondary feasibility endpoints, it did not meet its primary feasibility endpoint (enrollment) and acceptability was mixed. Protecting nursing staff time, increasing patient and clinician involvement in intervention development, and identifying patients with highest supportive needs may improve feasibility and acceptability of future primary palliative care in hematologic malignancy trials.
Background: In the United States, the percentage of hospitals over 50 beds with palliative care programs has risen substantially from 7% of hospitals in 2001 to 72% in 2017. Yet the dynamic nature of program adoption and closure over time is not known.
Objective: To examine the rate of palliative care program adoption and closure and associated hospital and geographic characteristics in a national sample of U.S. hospitals.
Design: Adoption and closure rates were calculated for 3696 U.S. hospitals between 2009 and 2017. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association between adoption and closure status and hospital, geographic, and community characteristics.
Setting/Subjects: All nonfederal general medical and surgical, cancer, heart, and obstetric or gynecological hospitals, of all sizes, in the United States in operation in both 2009 and 2017.
Results: By 2017, 34.9% (812/2327) of the hospitals without palliative care in 2009 had adopted palliative care programs, and 15.0% (205/1369) of the hospitals with programs had closed them. In multivariable models, hospitals in metropolitan areas, nonprofit and public hospitals (compared to for-profit hospitals), and those with residency training approval by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were significantly more likely to adopt and significantly less likely to close palliative care programs during the study period.
Conclusions: This study indicates that palliative care is not equitably adopted nor sustained by hospitals in the United States. Federal and state interventions may be required to ensure that high-quality care is available to our nation's sickest patients.
Purpose:
An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer.
Clinical context:
Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient's illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available.
Recent data:
Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO.
Provisional clinical opinion:
Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care-when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care-leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research.
Note:
ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.
Although hospital palliative care consultation services (PCCS) can improve a variety of clinical and nonclinical outcomes, little is known about how these services are structured.
We surveyed all 351 acute care hospitals in California to examine the structure and characteristics of those hospitals with PCCS.
We achieved a 92% response rate. Thirty-one percent (n=107) of hospitals reported having a PCCS. Teams commonly included physicians (87%), social workers (80%), spiritual care professionals (77%), and registered nurses (71%). Nearly all PCCS were available on-site during weekday business hours; 50% were available on-site or by phone in the weekday evenings and 54% were available during weekend daytime hours. The PCCS saw an average of 347 patients annually (median=310, standard deviation [SD]=217), or 258 patients per clinical full-time equivalent (FTE; median=250, SD=150.3). Overall, 60% of consultation services reported they are struggling to cope with the workload. On average, patients were in the hospital 5.9 days (median=5.5, SD=3.3) prior to referral to PCCS, and remained in the hospital for 6 days (median=4, SD=7.9) following the initial consultation. Patient and family meetings were an aspect of the consultation in 74% of cases. Overall, 21% of consultation patients were discharged home with hospice services and 25% died in the hospital.
There is variation in how PCCS in California hospitals are structured and in the ways they engage with patients. Ultimately, linking PCCS characteristics and practices to patient and family outcomes will identify best practices that PCCS can use to maximize quality.
In 2000, 17% of California hospitals offered palliative care (PC) services. Since then, hospital-based PC programs have become increasingly common, and preferred practices for these services have been proposed by expert consensus.
We sought to examine the prevalence of PC programs in California, their structure, and the hospital characteristics associated with having a program.
A total of 351 acute care hospitals in California completed a survey that determined the presence of and described the structure of PC services. Logistic regression identified hospital characteristics associated with having a PC program.
A total of 324 hospitals (92%) responded, of which 44% (n=141) reported having a PC program. Hospitals most likely to have PC programs were large nonprofit facilities that belonged to a health system, had teaching programs, and had participated in a training program designed to promote development of PC services. Investor-owned sites (odds ratio [OR]=0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.03, 0.2) and city/county facilities (OR=0.06; 95% CI=0.01, 0.3) were less likely to have a PC program. The most common type of PC service was an inpatient consultation service (88%), staffed by a physician (87%), social worker (81%), chaplain (76%), and registered nurse (74%). Most programs (71%, n=86) received funding from the hospital and were expected to meet goals set by the hospital or health system.
Although the number of hospital-based PC services in California has doubled since 2000, more than half of the acute care hospitals still do not provide PC services. Developing initiatives that target small, public, and investor-owned hospitals may lead to wider availability of PC services.
Patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer have a substantial symptom burden and may receive aggressive care at the end of life. We examined the effect of introducing palliative care early after diagnosis on patient-reported outcomes and end-of-life care among ambulatory patients with newly diagnosed disease.
We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer to receive either early palliative care integrated with standard oncologic care or standard oncologic care alone. Quality of life and mood were assessed at baseline and at 12 weeks with the use of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, respectively. The primary outcome was the change in the quality of life at 12 weeks. Data on end-of-life care were collected from electronic medical records.
Of the 151 patients who underwent randomization, 27 died by 12 weeks and 107 (86% of the remaining patients) completed assessments. Patients assigned to early palliative care had a better quality of life than did patients assigned to standard care (mean score on the FACT-L scale [in which scores range from 0 to 136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life], 98.0 vs. 91.5; P=0.03). In addition, fewer patients in the palliative care group than in the standard care group had depressive symptoms (16% vs. 38%, P=0.01). Despite the fact that fewer patients in the early palliative care group than in the standard care group received aggressive end-of-life care (33% vs. 54%, P=0.05), median survival was longer among patients receiving early palliative care (11.6 months vs. 8.9 months, P=0.02).
Among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, early palliative care led to significant improvements in both quality of life and mood. As compared with patients receiving standard care, patients receiving early palliative care had less aggressive care at the end of life but longer survival. (Funded by an American Society of Clinical Oncology Career Development Award and philanthropic gifts; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038271.)
Hospital palliative care consultation teams have been shown to improve care for adults with serious illness. This study examined the effect of palliative care teams on hospital costs.
We analyzed administrative data from 8 hospitals with established palliative care programs for the years 2002 through 2004. Patients receiving palliative care were matched by propensity score to patients receiving usual care. Generalized linear models were estimated for costs per admission and per hospital day.
Of the 2966 palliative care patients who were discharged alive, 2630 palliative care patients (89%) were matched to 18,427 usual care patients, and of the 2388 palliative care patients who died, 2278 (95%) were matched to 2124 usual care patients. The palliative care patients who were discharged alive had an adjusted net savings of $1696 in direct costs per admission (P = .004) and $279 in direct costs per day (P < .001) including significant reductions in laboratory and intensive care unit costs compared with usual care patients. The palliative care patients who died had an adjusted net savings of $4908 in direct costs per admission (P = .003) and $374 in direct costs per day (P < .001) including significant reductions in pharmacy, laboratory, and intensive care unit costs compared with usual care patients. Two confirmatory analyses were performed. Including mean costs per day before palliative care and before a comparable reference day for usual care patients in the propensity score models resulted in similar results. Estimating costs for palliative care patients assuming that they did not receive palliative care resulted in projected costs that were not significantly different from usual care costs.
Hospital palliative care consultation teams are associated with significant hospital cost savings.
The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to better understand the conceptualization of satisfaction with end-of-life care and the effectiveness of palliative care interventions on this outcome. Data sources included Medline and the Database of Reviews of Effects. The review included relevant qualitative studies and intervention studies using satisfaction as an outcome from 1990 to 2005. Reviewing 24,423 citations yielded 21 relevant qualitative studies, four systematic reviews, and eight additional intervention studies. The qualitative literature described the domains of accessibility and coordination; competence, including symptom management; communication and education; emotional support and personalization of care; and support of patients' decision-making. For collaboration and consultation interventions, eight of 13 studies showed a significant effect on satisfaction. A meta-analysis found that palliative care and hospice teams improved satisfaction, although most studies did not include satisfaction as an outcome. For other types of interventions, only two of six showed a significant effect. For heart failure coordination of care, only seven of 32 studies addressed this as an outcome; two of the three that compared satisfaction between groups showed a significant difference. Evaluations used many different measures, only one of which was designed for the end of life. In conclusion, researchers have conceptualized satisfaction in palliative care, and different types of palliative care interventions can improve satisfaction, but it is often not included as an outcome. More focus on these satisfaction elements might improve the effectiveness of end-of-life interventions and their evaluation.
Background:
There is good evidence for the efficacy of inpatient palliative care in improving clinical care, patient and provider satisfaction, quality of life, and health care utilization. However, the evidence for the efficacy of nonhospice outpatient palliative care is less well known and has not been comprehensively reviewed.
Objective:
To review and assess the evidence of the impact of outpatient palliative care.
Methods:
Our study was a review of published, peer-reviewed outcomes research, including both observational studies and controlled trials of nonhospice outpatient palliative care services. We assessed patient, family caregiver, and clinician satisfaction; clinical outcomes including symptom management, quality of life, and mortality; and heath care utilization outcomes including readmission rates, hospice use, and cost.
Results:
Four well-designed randomized interventions as well as a growing body of nonrandomized studies indicate that outpatient palliative care services can: 1) improve patient satisfaction, 2) improve symptom control and quality of life, 3) reduce health care utilization, and 4) lengthen survival in a population of lung cancer patients.
Conclusions:
The available evidence supports the ongoing expansion of innovative outpatient palliative care service models throughout the care continuum to all patients with serious illness.
Background:
Inpatient palliative consultation are generally provided to seriously ill hospitalized patients with the intent to alleviate pain and suffering and develop a plan of care for the patient. Although numerous benefits of this service have been documented, little is known about hospital readmission rates and factors associated with these readmissions.
Objective:
Our aim was to investigate factors associated with 30-day hospital readmission among patients receiving a consultation from an inpatient palliative care (ICP) team.
Design:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study.
Setting/subjects:
Data from 408 managed care patients 65 years old and older were collected in 2007-2009 following an IPC consultation and subsequent hospital discharge.
Measurements:
IPC and medical service use records were utilized.
Results:
Among IPC patients, 10% of those discharged from the hospital were readmitted within 30 days. Factors associated with hospital readmission included being discharged from the hospital with no care in the home or to a nursing facility. Receipt of hospice or home-based palliative care post-discharge was associated with significantly lower odds of hospital readmission.
Conclusions:
This study found that receipt of palliative care following hospital discharge was an important factor in reducing 30-day hospital readmissions. Further study is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of longitudinal palliative care models in reducing 30-day hospital readmissions among seriously ill patients.
Patients with incurable illness experience considerable physical and psychological distress, which negatively impacts their quality of life. Palliative care clinicians primarily seek to alleviate suffering, enhance coping with symptoms, and enable informed decision making. In this article, we review the efficacy of various palliative care interventions to improve patients' quality of life, physical and psychological symptoms, satisfaction with care, family caregiver outcomes, health-service utilization, and quality of end-of-life care. We have identified 22 randomized studies that evaluate the efficacy of various palliative care interventions. Palliative care research has been hampered by methodological challenges related to attrition and missing data due to progressive illness and death. In addition, interventions to date have varied widely in the focus and extent of services, with only eight studies entailing direct clinical care by palliative care specialists, making comparisons across trials challenging. Despite these limitations, accumulating evidence shows that palliative care interventions do improve patients' quality of life, satisfaction with care, and end-of-life outcomes. Five of seven studies which examined quality of life as a primary outcome reported a statistically significant difference favoring the palliative care intervention. Ten studies examined patient and/or family caregiver satisfaction with care, and seven of these reported greater satisfaction with palliative care intervention. However, data are lacking to support the benefit of palliative interventions for reducing patients' physical and psychological symptoms. We conclude the review by discussing the major obstacles and future directions in evaluating and implementing standardized palliative care interventions.
Palliative care consultation teams in hospitals are becoming increasingly more common. Palliative care improves the quality of hospital care for patients with advanced disease. Less is known about its effects on hospital costs.
To evaluate the relationship between palliative care consultation and hospital costs in patients with advanced disease.
An observational study of 3321 veterans hospitalized with advanced disease between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2006. The sample includes 606 (18%) veterans who received palliative care and 2715 (82%) who received usual hospital care. October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2006.
We studied the costs and intensive care unit (ICU) use of palliative versus usual care for patients in five Veterans Affairs hospitals over a 2-year period. We used an instrumental variable approach to control for unmeasured characteristics that affect both treatment and outcome.
The average daily total direct hospital costs were $464 a day lower for the 606 patients receiving palliative compared to the 2715 receiving usual care (p < 0.001). Palliative care patients were 43.7 percentage points less likely to be admitted to ICU during the hospitalization than usual care patients (p < 0.001).
Palliative care for patients hospitalized with advanced disease results in lower costs of care and less utilization of intensive care compared to similar patients receiving usual care. Selection on unobserved characteristics plays an important role in the determination of costs of care.